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 |
Zahir shah was not popular,
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:51 PM PDTZahir shah was not popular, did not do anything but to come back to Afghanistan when she was freed as an old broken man. Meanwhile, Shah Masoud was young, spirited, very popular, charismatic and he was fighting to free afghanistan. If he survied, he could have chosen any title he wanted. That is why shah masoud was murdered.
The people of Iran were trying to choose the better of the several evils, and still were cheated. The candidates could not even win in their home towns. What a joke you call elections!
David ET,
by Q on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:45 PM PDTYou know how I feel about being interrogated.
The 85% included people who had rejected the Monarchist (including Jr.) call for boycotts. This is fact.
Both sides agreed on the very high number of the turnout and had election observers to prove it. A few percentage here and there does not make a difference. Unless you are taking the (now discredited) Mojahedin line that only 4% voted, you have to agree that it was the highest turnout in recent memory. Are you saying people who didn't vote were holding up "where is my vote?" and "where is your 63%?" signs? This is not even debatable.
You do not need to actually vote to come out into the streets. if you don't believe in the system, you don't need to participate. If you have a better candidate, you can hold up his picture, even if he wasn't allowed to run. If the kind of movement that you seem to think exists in Iran, did exist, it could do a lot of damage on its own on any day, not just election day or around election issues. Some of the demonstrators who came out were part of the small minority who had not voted. But the fact remains that the call to change from inside the system has spoken the loudest in Iran so far.
This call has been embraced for a simple reason. There is a broad coalition which includes some regime loyalists, some conservative religious figures and other groups that would not support a revolution the way most people sitting in America seem to think is supported by everyone.
MM, great, that's exactly what I thought. Have a nice night.
Q - where do you get your info?
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:38 PM PDTget your facts straight, then we can have a conversation.
MM, why did you bring up Masoud at all?
by Q on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:32 PM PDTMy analogy was about Monarchs, was there something you didn't understand about it?
The point is that many people like yourself, speaking from an external and uninformed position also said that the movement was dead but it obviously wasn't. Now you are ready to pronounce the Green movement dead (based on whatever "sins" YOU believe it has done) but you are most likely wrong again.
Q's for "Q"
by David ET on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:33 PM PDTQ: Do you really believe the majority of the Iranian people are summed up in the two camps of Conservatives and Moderates who believe in Islamic Republic and the rest do not exist or minimal in comparison?
Q: Do you really think the "85%" only included the two camps who want IR regime, only because they voted, and others who voted but did not believe in IR did not exist or minimal in comparsion?
Q: Do you really think the "3 million" in the streets only included the two camps who want Ir regime, only because they came to the streets and others did not walk in the streets or were mininal in comparison?
Q: Do you have proof for your claims?
Q: Kamenei also says that 85% vote was a vote for IR , what is his proof for this and what is yours? and what is the difference in your logics and conclusions if any?
Q: Do you think if there were other options available for people (specifically secular ones) , people would have chosen Mousavi?
Q: Do you prefer a secular system or continuation of Islamic Republic.
Q: Do you think the constitution of Islamic Republic is a democratic one?
Thank you
Mr Q speaks in his usual clever form
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:29 PM PDTNo need to give me history lessons, Mr Q. The point was that Shah Masoud, if survived now, could take any title because of who he was, and I compared a shah masoud/babak Khorramdin moment for RP, if he ever gets any.
Khatami meant well, but he had his hands tied while thrown in a pool to swim, so to speak. A very predictable outcome while the power remained with an absolute VF with the backing of the Sepaah. True then as it is true now. And, as I said, the leaders lost the brief momentum when IRI forces brutalized the demonstrators and people saw that the likes of Khatami/Karrubi/Rafsanjani/Mousavi still bowed to the VF and wanted an Islamic Republic with Khomeini as the blueprint.
(U)MM..., what are you talking about?
by Q on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:12 PM PDTIf Masoud Shah was not murdered in 2001 by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he could have chosen any title he wanted now,
That's great. I, however was talking about Mohammad Zahir Shah, the Afghan Monarch, not Ahmad Shah Masoud, the Nothern Alliance Commander who wasn't actually a King.
I had to go out and buy a monarchist hat to answer you,
how tight did you wear this hat exactly?
however, the leaders lost the momentum when IRI forces brutalized the demonstrators
Says who? You? Let me take a wild guess. You said the same thing of the Khatami, reformists and the student movements in the past 15 years as well right? Wrote them off because you didn't really understand the movement? Has it occurred to you that conservatives also have significant support in Iran and that any process of democratizaton might be slow?
Ahura
by jamshid on Tue Mar 30, 2010 09:53 PM PDTWhile we can argue about a real or phantom corruption in the past, today's IRI corruption, the worst in the world, is burning down our country.
I agree in the urgency to focus on the IRI. That is why I have repeated many times, that we must not bring the past into the present because if we do, as proven in this blog, it will only create unnecessary divisions.
I modified my comments (those that I could) to tone it down as David ET suggested.
I disagree I had to go
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 09:08 PM PDTI disagree
I had to go out and buy a monarchist hat to answer you, even though I am not a monarchist. If Masoud Shah was not murdered in 2001 by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he could have chosen any title he wanted now, be it a Shah, Raees Jomhoor or Afghan-bashi. That is because he was courageous, charismatic and he was fighting to clean Afghanistan.
While people in Iran may talk about corruptions and lack of freedoms in Iran during MRP times, they would switch in a second with what they had before given a magic lamp. People in Iran do not know too much about RP, but that is because of the brutality of IRI towards anyone known to be a monarchist (two hung right before x-mas 2009). Nonetheless, if Reza Pahlavi has a Sattar Khan or Babak Khorramdin moment (just like Shah Masoud), he can probably walk away with any title he wants too.
The Green movement had a chance to shine in Iran, however, the leaders lost the momentum when IRI forces brutalized the demonstrators and people saw that the likes of Khatami/Karrubi/Rafsanjani/Mousavi still bowed to the VF and wanted an Islamic Republic with Khomeini as the blueprint. While their support is still appreciated in the masses because of a lack of secular leadership, the cruelty of IRI is reflected in people’s voices (jomhoori-e Irani, Marg bar VF) and actions like the burning of VF/Khomeini.
Mr. Jamshid
by Ahura on Tue Mar 30, 2010 08:40 PM PDTNo Pahlavis did not create corruption and despotism in Iran but prolonged and increased them. I tried to convey that point by using “prevailing corruption” in the second sentence of my comments.
Our urgent task now is to help Iranian people remove this enemy of our culture, the IRI plague. We are all united for that cause.
Sorry Nur, completely disagree
by Q on Tue Mar 30, 2010 08:24 PM PDTYou really should be smarter than to accept what I affectionately call "cabcentric statistics" (i.e. I went to Iran and the cabbie told me I was right on everything) as any kind of "evidence".
Please... for 30 years now every Monarchist who ever travels to Iran has been convinced there would be a revolution tomorrow restoring the "Alahazrat" only to be disappointed by reality. And that's only the smart ones. The dumb ones become even more deluded thinking the "support" must be "even deeper" and a vast complex global conspiracy is keeping it down for nafarious purposes.
Incidentally that's what the Mojaheds say too.
We really have to grow up sometime in our lives.
The Green movement is the single most dynamic political force in Iran since the revolution. What exactly has RP done to compete with that?
I'll give you a better analogy. Zahir Shah of Afghanistan was vastly more popular, loved and democratic for the People of Afghanistan than Pahlavis ever were for Iran,before he was ousted (with a lot less anger) back in '73. His era looks like a Golden heaven by all measures compared to anything the poor afghans experienced in the subsequent 40 years.
When Taliban was overthrown in 2001, he was still alive and went back to Afghanistan.
If there was any Monarch who would have a claim to re-rise to power based on nostalgia alone, it would have to be him. Note that he would be like if Mohammad Reza Pahlavi went back to Iran, not even junior. But at the end of the day, he had very little support. What positive support he had was with the very old and not the young.
So, let's get real and go beyond the statistically insignificant number of people we meet on our trips to Iran, when we necessarily spend time with the highest socio-economic class and "young" people hanging out in North Tehran or Dubai clubs.
The only number you need to know is the 85% of Iranians who participated in the elections, and the 3 Million who came to the streets in spite Junior and the LA-based Lamocracy "boycotting" the election.
To those who oppose RP
by David ET on Tue Mar 30, 2010 08:01 PM PDTI too agree that Reza Pahlavi has faults for many things that he could and can say and he hasn't and also many things that he could and can do that he hasn't
Having said that, he has been consistently talking about democracy and human rights and has opposed the regime. He is an asset against the regime. How he wants to utilize it , at the end of the day remains to be his choice.
Meanwhile those who oppose the regime, should join hands with each other on many common ideals that we all SAY we have (considering that none has had a chance to be in power yet), therefore instead of pointing at one another with our versios of history; we must oppose the regime and not one another and then in a democratic and secular system that we each can help create then we can openly and in a civil way discuss, campaign and even oppose one another.
and of course I also hope that the monrachists respect others and to excercise tolerance and unity as well
Because meanwhile prisons, guns and knives of IR is facing us and THAT is what we must get rid of ...
A republican
Dear Jamshid
by David ET on Tue Mar 30, 2010 07:48 PM PDTThere are always hot buttons and there is always one word of one that pushes the hot button of another.
So before each other, it is best to learn how to deal with the issue and our own hot buttons, or we all keep getting hotter and hotter with no result.
On the prince word, I started the comment with you but not every sentence was about you. I mentioned "their" not "your".
I also did mention to ahura that issue is IR ...etc... and as you see the word that pushed your hot button, he also confirmed that was chosen in error... so it is just how we communicate and how we neat pick each others words and what we focus on, the differences or what is in common
again I am making general comments here and I am not a "mobser" of this exchange, just making observation and reflecting. Anyway if I did not make myself clear to you and got misunderstood , I apologize.
Thank you Kaveh Parsa for this posting ....
by Atessa1 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 07:26 PM PDTWhile I was reading Reza Pahlavi's speech...I was thinking that none of the evil minds could find a fault in this fair statement!
Reading some comments on this blog proved me wrong.
Wish to congratulate Nur for his wisdom & fairness. I do not know when you left Iran dear Nur, but you are quiet well informed on people’s mood towards Pahlavis!
And to those who can only nagg and inject their venom without offering any constructive criticism…I would repeat what we used to say about their kind in Iran; “Nafaseshoon Az Jayeh Garm Dar Miyad”. They do not care about people’s suffering in Iran. They do not give a damn about the people’s struggles. The only thing they wish to achieve is to create divisions in order to make sure that the people they left behind continue to pay for their mistakes!
May God help Iran!
MM
by jamshid on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:50 PM PDT"It is time for RP to amend the constitution and show everyone that he means the words spoke"
Well said. Until now, RP has avoided doing anything that is outside the norm. And that is why his campaign has been lackluster. It is creative and innovative ideas, like the one you suggested above, that can breath life into RP and monarchist's campaign.
Although even then, I would still vote for a republic, but I do value what RP could do for the opposition if he takes innovative and creative steps forward.
so don't listen nor read what he has to say ...
by Fatollah on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:33 PM PDTHow hard can that be?
democracy democracy ref-ran-dom ref-random
by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:22 PM PDTazadee azadee azadee. moftarchy mofarchy (maybe ok only if you insist ok baba sure). that's the briefing that president obama should get on this guy. same old bs that any average Iranian can express. Only he gets a clap clap for last name and nice suits.
He cannot fool anyone
by ناتور دشت on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:19 PM PDTReza Pahlavi comes from a corrupt family. His father, and grandfather committed grand crimes. This guy has no internal support in Iran.
Monarchy is a thing of the past.
Evolution comes from constructive criticism, not name-calling ..
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:13 PM PDTEvolution comes from constructive criticism, not name-calling and forcing the other side to build their castles without sharing walls with ours.
I have heard bits and pieces of Reza Pahlavi’s speeches. I am not a monarchist, but have been asking RP and supporters to clarify their positions on democracy, human rights, secularism, etc. And, that he should personally amend and sign the 1906 constitution to reflect the changes in his speeches.
RP’s words above went a long way in expressing his positions in one speech, and I applaud him for that. That is why I said that I see a convergence of different secular forces out there, and that he can play a very positive role in uniting the secular forces. Now, the words have been spoken and it is time for action. It is time for RP to amend the constitution and show everyone that he means the words spoken, and to join forces with the rest of the secularists.
If NOT, then someone please wake up Sargord from his ZZZZZ's so that he can report to his bosses that the opposition will not amount to much for another 31 years.
Pahlavi/Monarchy self destruction/Destructed
by capt_ayhab on Sat Apr 03, 2010 08:09 AM PDTPahlavi/Monarchy self destruction/Destructed.
Not that this gentleman of no talent, no experience, no honor, no dignity matters to anyone but himself and the talking head right wing nuts who surround him.
But does this man of no talent and ORZEH has anything to say but his repetitious arajeefs????
And
Why is he so chicken that him nor his 2.75 paid staff answer anyone's email? Are we the Shah wanna be way too busy?
-YT
One more question from you Ahura
by jamshid on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:51 PM PDT"The main culprit was Mohammad Reza Shah’s corrupt and dictatorial rule that had created a society with deep rooted autocratic practices, religious bigotry, politically uninformed and prejudiced populace, and servile elite."
Again, I must ask wasn't the pre-Pahlavi Iranian society already deeply rooted in autocratic practices, religious bigotry, politicaly uninformed and prejuiced populace and servile elite?
Now, I'd like to ask you again, was it the Pahlavis who created the above, or did the Pahlavis had to somehow find ways to modernize Iran despite having to deal with the above?
Dear David, isn't it the other way around?
by jamshid on Tue Mar 30, 2010 06:52 PM PDTShouldn't you be critisizing the person who pushes the hot buttons of diversion, instead of me who is merely reacting to it?
Why, the IRI doesn't even need to send his agents among us to create division, while we ourselves are doing even a better job.
You see, avoiding the pressing of the hot buttons are far more important than avoiding the reactions that might ensue. In some corners of the world, they call this preventive medicine.
Because it is much much easier to avoid pressing the hot buttons, than to avoiding the reactions that will certainly follow.
"Such attitude when defending their Prince..."
What prince? In what part of my comment did you conclude that I consider RP to be my prince? Did I even talk about him? I only talked about corruption and democracy in the past.
Thank You David ET
by Ahura on Tue Mar 30, 2010 04:30 PM PDTThank you David ET for pointing out the misused term in the opening sentence of my writing. The word “democracy” should be replaced with “1906 Persian Constitution” which had some fundamental elements of democracy and freedom for the people. Obviously our culture is replete with despotism and it takes years of nurturing to learn the ways of democracy.
You are correct that the real enemy of Iran is IRI and Iranians of all political affiliations are needed to oppose this theocracy in any possible way and replace it with a secular democracy.
Dear Farah Rusta
by Nur-i-Azal on Tue Mar 30, 2010 01:05 PM PDTThank you very much for your kindness. The Light of your own khorreh/Xvarnah (i.e. farr) isn't so bad either ;-)
Ya NURUnited? Us?.........
by Cost-of-Progress on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:19 AM PDTLook at this site. There are at least 6-10 different "opinions" offerred on Iran and her current status at at any given time. It doesn't matter what's right for Iran, it matters what WE believe is right for her. We are so selfish that we do not want to believe that our beliefs and opinions could be totally wrong - It's our way or no way. We are all politicians and policymakers!
Fact is that we paid a high price for "trying" theocracy. We lost over 30 years that could have gone to improve Iran, her people and her standing in the world. It is time to think of Iran for a change and not just oursleves. This regime will never relinquish power unless we all unite with the same voice.
People must be unified in their message that even though their religion is Islam (as we are reminded time and again by the ommaties on the site), we put country first - we want a fair and democratic system ruled by laws respected by all humans in this millenia - we do not want religion to rule over us. Like every other human on this planet, we have rights and damn it, we want to excercise our rights.
JUST BECAUSE OUR RELIGION IS ISLAM (FOR MOST PEOPLE), IT DOES NOT MEAN WE WANT RELIGION TO RULE US FROM HEAD TO TOE - LITERALLY!
Do you believe that we can come together on this very subject? I sure as hell hope so.
____________
IRAN FIRST
____________
This is not about evolution
by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:19 AM PDTNot until we can criticize a clown like this who is a broken record of plagiarized ideas without being told we are "intolerant" and "lovers of the regime in Iran." I'd say the same about people who criticize the regime in Iran. They are labeled by their opposition, the IRI, by being called MKO and Monarchist and anti-God yadda yadda.
ARE WE EVOLVED YET?
by free vs islam on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:53 AM PDTThere are people who agree or disagree with Pahlavi, and really that is not the issue and main issue is those who complain and question pahlavi, I woulld like to ask what is that you have done for your country or countryman from last 31 years. we are so selfish that even we can't accept or tollerate eachother, No wonder that we have been ruled by akhonds from last 31 years, not many iranian have a understanding of politics and yet we claim we are the masters. if we learn to accept and tollerate eachother and evolve then we are looking for right path and Note for some: We are the nation with alot of emotions but not much of brain, think about it we are in iran following Mousavi or others like him are we morons or what? no wonder clerics could rape,kill, prison us and the people have no vision because they are waiting for the right person lead them to right Path, Now you choose Mousavi or Pahlavi or khamenie or is there any one who we don't know yet. any one could remove these cancers out of country has my blessing and it's either pahlavi or any one who say no to satanic religion rulings. can we do that and that is the goal that we should aimd at.
Secularists: pls put ur differences aside for bloody damn once
by MM on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:51 AM PDTAll secularists: please put your differences aside and concentrate on the process of unification. The blame game has not taken us any further than where we have been in the past 31 freaking years:
* This regime and its henchman have stolen more than any Pahlavi could imagine.
* This regime and its henchman have killed/raped/tortured/jailed/beaten/intimated/censored more than any you-name-it.
* This regime and its henchman have caused the decline of morale, a sharp increase in corruption and a decrease in religious beliefs more than any period in the history of Iran and I dare to say the world.
This was a good speech by RP which needs to be followed up with actions. Let's concentrate on the common denominator that binds us and think about what if and how ........
Well said and summarized Ahura
by Bavafa on Tue Mar 30, 2010 09:57 AM PDTHe needs some thing like a "12 step" by first acknowledging the past, giving up the stolen $$$ from Iran, etc. Then if he can show that he can be independent and have a message that appeals to Iranians inside Iran, then and only then maybe he will find some interested ears and followers. Till then, he will be the same guy that jumps from one camp to another depending on the direction of the wind.
Mehrdad
در خرابات مغان نور خدا مینیبم
Farah RustaTue Mar 30, 2010 09:03 AM PDT
Dear NUR
You are verily the piercing Light shining through a clouded sky. What a pity that your life enhancing light should be shone upon such a life wasting form. I am totally consumed by your words. May the God of Light bless you.
Farah