Akbar Ganji

[Sepideh_UK]

Intresting.
Thanx.

[Rasputin]

اکبر گنجی روزنامه نگار ناراضی ايرانی در سومين هفته سفرش به ايالات متحده آمريکا در جمع گروهی از هنرمندان و فيلمسازان مشهور جهان در هاليوود، از آن ها خواست به ياری جنبش دموکراسی خواهی ايران بپيوندند و صدای ايرانيان آزادی خواه را به گوش جهانيان برسانند.
گنجی که به دعوت هنرمندان پيشرو هاليوود در جمع آنان حاضر شده بود در سخنرانی خود از جبهه سومی گفت که به اعتقاد وی همه صلح دوستان و آزادی خواهان جهان می توانند در آن جمع شده و فضای موجود بين المللی را که محل چالش جنگ طلبان است در اختيار بگيرند.

اکبر گنجی که با اعتصاب غذای ماندگار خود که شش ماه پيش در زندان اوين تهران به آن دست زد توجه جهانيان را به نقص حقوق بشر در ايران جلب کرد، سه روز پيش به ديدار شون پن هنرپيشه و فعال حقوق بشری رفت و مورد استقبال وی قرار گرفت. شون پن عکسی از گنجی را در کنار عکس يادگاری خود با نلسون ماندلا گذاشت و اعلام داشت که خود را عضوی از جبنش دموکراسی خواهی ايران می شناسد و از اين پس در راه شناسائی اين جنبش فعاليت خواهد کرد.

گردهمايی گنجی و هنرمندان پيشرو هاليوود نيز به ابتکار و دعوت شون پن اتفاق افتاد و در آن چهره هايی مشهور از سينمای جهان حاضر بودند که اشتراک آنها به گفته وارن بيتی، هنرپيشه آمريکايی، درد مشترکشان در زيستن در دورانی است که صلح مظلوم و منزوی مانده و صدای جنگ جويان در نقاط مختلف جهان به گوش می رسد.



اکبر گنجی در سخنرانی خود که عنوان آن را 'جبهه سوم' نهاده بود، گفت: "هم بنيادگرايان اسلامی مانند طالبان، القاعده، حزب الله، و جمهوری اسلامی، و هم بنيادگرايان يهودی در اسرائيل و هم بنيادگرايان مسيحی در سياست خارجی دولت آمريکا طالب جنگ هستند و کليد مشکلات منطقه را در اعمال زور و خشونت می جويند. اما حقيقت اين است که خشونت هرگز به حل مشکلی نمی انجامد. خشونت به خشونت بيشتر دامن می زند و نفرت نهايتا نفرت بيشتر می آفريند."

اين گفته های آقای گنجی با تشويق حاضران همراه شد. وی سپس گفت: "به گمان من هنرمندان، متفکران، و روشنفکران پيشرو جهان بهترين ياران ما در اين راه دشوارند. حمايت اخلاقی و معنوی گروه های مترقی دنيا آسيب پذيريهای جنبش دموکراسی خواهی ما ايرانيان را بسيار کم می کند."



روزنامه نگار ناراضی ايرانی که چهارماه پيش از زندانی آزاد شد که شش سال در آن بود و بخش عمده آن در اعتصاب غذا و در سلول های انفرادی گذشت، از هنرمندان پيشرو هاليوود خواست در راه آن که جهان نقض حقوق بشر در ايران را جدی بگيرد، جنبش دموکراسی خواهی را ياری دهند.

هنگامی که گنجی گفت مردم ايران نگرانند که مبادا منافع اقتصادی دولت های جهان، و نيز زد و بندهای سياسی پشت پرده موجب شود که مسأله حقوق بشر در ايران به فراموشی سپرده شود، حاضران برای وی بار ديگر کف زدند.

جلسه ديدار اکبر گنجی با هنرمندان هاليوود که به طور مشخص عليه جنگ و سياست های نومحافظه کاران آمريکائی جبهه گيری دارند و از همين رو "پيشرو" خوانده می شوند، در پايان سخنرانی نيم ساعته گنجی به پرسش و پاسخ کشيد و اين بخش خود نزديک سه ساعت به طول انجاميد.

چهره های مشهور سينمای جهان که شون پن آن ها را دعوت به اين جلسه کرده بود، به ويژه در مورد احتمال حمله نظامی آمريکا به ايران حساس بودند و بيش تر سوال های آنان در همين راستا بود. آنان با شون پن همصدا بودند که گفت اعتراض به نقص حقوق بشر در ايران نبايد بهانه ای به دست جنگ طلبان در ايالات متحده آمريکا دهد که بار ديگر جنگی در گوشه ديگر برپا دارند.



شون پن سال گذشته در سفر يک هفته ای به تهران گزارش هايی برای نشريه سان فرانسيسکو کرونيکل می فرستاد که در آنها به حرکت موج های مردمی و نوعی دموکراسی موجود در ايران اشاره کرد.

وی در اولين ديدار با گنجی با نشان دادن عکس های وی زمانی که در زندان اوين در حال اعتصاب عذا بود، از آن ها به عنوان مدارک غيرقابل ترديدی که در تاريخ حقوق بشر جهانی به جا می ماند ياد کرد.

در جلسه پرسش و پاسخ از جمله کسانی که سخنان پرشوری مطرح کرد وارن بينی چهره مشهور سينما و فعال حقوق بشر بود که در دوره گذشته از جانب دموکرات ها و چهره های ضد جنگ آمريکايی در مقابل آرنولد شوارتزنگر برای فرمانداری ايالت کاليفرنيا نامزد شده بود.

وارن بينی گفت تز گنجی برای وی کاملا نو و انسانی است به ويژه آن جا که می گويد راه صلح از دموکراسی می گذرد، اما برای تحقق بخشيدن به دموکراسی نمی توان به نيروهای نظامی متوسل شد. دموکراسی کالايی صادراتی نيست. يعنی نمی توان آن را از بيرون يک جامعه بر آن تحميل کرد... تأسيس و برقراری دموکراسی وظيفه خود ماست نه ديگران..."

[Rasputin]

Free Thinker

Ganji, a small man with a whisper of a voice, is an Iranian writer who has taken on the world's mightiest theocracy and its thundering ayatollahs. Released in March after six years in prison -- a good chunk of that time in solitary confinement -- he is today the most radical democrat in Tehran. Several hunger strikes have left him with an emaciated body, at one point down more than 55 pounds, to 108. Deep crow's-feet dig dark crevices around his eyes when he smiles, belying his 46 years.

Ganji is a lonely voice in Iran these days, as hard-line leaders' positions are hardening and the reform movement has atrophied. Disillusioned, he has also turned against the very reformers who view him as their hero.

"The regime is driving Iran towards a catastrophe. . . . Iran is today an archipelago of prisons," he said during one of two recent interviews in Washington. ". . . But the path of the reformers is not correct either."

Ganji is brazen by the standards of a movement more comfortable with nuances, nudges and compromise. His investigative articles in Iranian newspapers linked Iran's intelligence ministry to the killings of dozens of dissidents during the 1990s.

He compiled his accusations against the regime in "Dungeon of Ghosts," the Iranian equivalent of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago." His other books chronicled corruption by top clergy. Put on trial in 2000 for defaming the regime and jeopardizing national security, he tore open his gray prison uniform to sit shirtless in court, showing what he said were the wounds of torture.

Food -- the lack of it -- became his weapon. In prison, he almost died during a 73-day hunger strike last year to protest his treatment and incarceration. He was eventually hospitalized.

"There is perhaps no greater exemplar of journalistic heroism in the world today," the National Press Club said in announcing that Ganji would receive its international Freedom of the Press award last month.

"His significance today remains in the example he sets," added Shaul Bakhash, a former Iranian journalist who is now a history professor at George Mason University. "He remains unflinching in his belief that it is the duty of intellectuals to speak out against tyranny and the suppression of individual rights. And he continues to speak out despite harsh treatment in the past and the prospect of further incarceration in the future."

Yet Ganji is no fan of the White House, either.

A year ago, President Bush issued a statement saying he was "saddened" by reports of Ganji's deteriorating health in prison. The White House demanded that Tehran release him for medical treatment, and it appealed to human rights activists around the world to rally to his cause.

"His valiant efforts should not go in vain," the White House statement said. "Mr. Ganji, please know that as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

[Rasputin]

But during his trip to Washington to pick up the award -- his first visit, part of a world tour to speak out on Iran's human rights violations and to collect other prizes, including the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom -- Ganji stayed as far away from the White House and all U.S. officials as he could, despite intermediaries' overtures.

Bush administration support is dangerous for Middle East democrats these days.

"I was in solitary confinement in prison and had no contact with anyone when Bush announced support for me," Ganji recalled. Interrogators, however, "talked to me as if I had had dinner with Bush the previous evening."

U.S.-backed wars in the Middle East, he added, are not helping democrats in the region.

In a speech at London's Imperial College last month, Ganji warned that Iran's democracy movement does not support military action by either local or foreign forces to produce change. "Violence and force can never by themselves create genuine beliefs," he noted, taking a poke at both Tehran and Washington.

During a conversation in Washington, Ganji reflected: "You people [in the West] have great accomplishments. You brought the world modernity. But no one trusts Western governments now. Many world leaders wanted to meet me. But all the dissidents in Iran asked me not to. This shows the Iranian perception of Western governments."

Ganji, who is married and has two teenage daughters, also scoffs at the $75 million that the Bush administration has allocated for programs to encourage Iran's democracy movement. He said the funds would be better used for Iranian- or Islamic-studies centers at American universities.

Despite the cleric-controlled election last year of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, Ganji argues that the idea of democracy has greater support today than at any time since Iran's constitutional revolution a century ago. The past year -- a time of growing censorship of the press and popular media, forced retirement of dissident professors, and the arrest of student and labor activists -- has deepened rejection of Tehran's theocracy.

"It's the first time that the elite have a consensus about human rights and democracy," he said. "The regime's biggest weakness is human rights. This is the issue on which it loses face with its people. It's the only point on which we can win."

The movement has so far faltered, he acknowledged, because of disorganization, absence of a strong leader and disparate roots -- left and right, secular and religious, monarchists and republicans, expatriates and insiders.

Ironically, they are the same diverse forces that opposed the shah -- until Ayatollah Khomeini's clerical clique offered the banner of Islam to unify them. Many Iranians now argue that their revolution to end more than 2,500 years of dynastic rule was hijacked.

"We still don't have the emergence of a Gandhi, Havel or Mandela," Ganji said.

[Rasputin]

Ganji did not always oppose the Iranian theocracy. He was once part of the regime he lambastes today.

A prototype revolutionary, Ganji grew up in the scruffy suburbs of south Tehran, a bastion of the 1979 rebellion against Iran's monarchy.

As a young man, he rallied behind Ayatollah Khomeini, served in the elite Revolutionary Guards at the same time as Iran's current hard-line president, then worked in the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, churning out its propaganda.

But Ganji gradually soured on the revolution -- then began trying to undo it.

"We wanted to create a heaven. We didn't want a shah, but we were not clear on what we desired," he reflected in his soft voice, his hands constantly in motion, pulling a label off a water bottle, picking at the clasps on his black cloth briefcase or gesticulating in the air. His nervous anger is in his hands, not his voice.

"The more we had repression, executions, as the revolution started swallowing its own children, I started to see this unbelievable reality, and from the other side I started to read about revolutions throughout history. And I ended up seeing one pattern: that all revolutions are the same, they follow the same rules. . . .

"I realized that repression is in the essence of revolution," he said, smiling. "And I realized that we cannot produce democracy with revolution."

Ganji emerged in the 1990s among a burgeoning group of reformers who challenged rigid theocratic rule and pushed for a freer press. As new independent newspapers started publishing, he began writing articles that probed the regime, corruption by top clerics and the killing of reformers and intellectuals.

His career came to an abrupt halt when he was charged in 2000.

In the isolation of prison, Ganji secretly started writing again. His book-length "Republican Manifesto" -- released in two parts, one in 2002, the other in 2005 -- and a series of letters to the "free people of the world" and top Iranian thinkers were sneaked out of Tehran's notorious Evin Prison and published on Freeganji.blogspot.com.

In a letter on the 43rd day of his hunger strike last year, addressed to his mentor, Iranian philosopher Abdolkarim Soroush, Ganji wrote angrily of the ruling mullahs who "hide their corruption under their robes. . . . They know nothing but claim to be the holders of divine secrets."

Iran's theocracy is headed by a supreme leader -- currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- who has veto power over all acts of an elected president and parliament. The ruling cleric, Ganji said, has "the status of a god" and is at the heart of the problem.

[Rasputin]

Khamenei must go," Ganji wrote boldly.

In his second manifesto, Ganji outlined a strategy to end theocratic rule through massive civil disobedience and election boycotts. He charged that Iran's elections were "fraudulent" because of "forged ballots" and "orders given from above" to add votes to bolster turnout and the regime's seeming legitimacy.

Invoking the civil disobedience campaigns of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, he called on student activists and intellectuals to ignore court summonses for opposition activity that, under Article 500 of Iran's penal code, makes them liable to three to 12 months in prison.

"Citizens must break this law," he wrote. "If this law is broken extensively, the regime will not be able to send many people to jail for expressing their opposition. . . . The uneven path to freedom will be opened by our efforts. Freedom is not free."

He also blasted reformers for timidity and for selling out, because they have been willing to adapt Iran's theocracy rather than abandon it. Reform is no longer viable, Ganji wrote.

Throughout his writing, Ganji quotes Socrates and Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Paine, Baudelaire and Montesquieu.

In accepting his National Press Club Award last month, Ganji said he reports "in order to instigate protest." And he cited Albert Camus' "The Plague," a tale of disease's devastating toll that is often interpreted as a metaphor for repression's deadly impact -- a tale that he applies to his country and others.

"I am with you here today in order to bear witness on behalf of the fallen victims of the plague of violence," he said.

"It recognizes no boundaries," the diminutive writer warned. "One day, incarnated as Stalin, it ran over the vast territories of Russia, one day as Hitler it tormented the people of Germany, the Jews and other people. . . . One day as Mussolini it wreaked devastation on the beautiful landscape of Italy, and another day as bin Laden it wrought havoc on the United States."

Ganji continues his protests wherever he goes. In New York last month, he held a symbolic three-day hunger strike in front of U.N. headquarters to demand that Iran release its political prisoners. Small hunger strikes were conducted simultaneously in 18 cities around the world. "We tried to bring the world's attention to the broad human rights violations in Iran today," Ganji explained. To do nothing, he argues, is to share responsibility for the status quo.

But some Iranian analysts wonder about Ganji's relevance in the face of an increasingly hard-line regime.

"Ganji probably represents the loudest and most courageous voice of dissent in Iran, but it's not necessarily a pragmatic or effective one," said Hadi Semati, a Tehran University professor now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "His combative and aggressive ideas on reform may not be in tune with the broader popular mood. The economic situation and the problems of everyday life and people are their priorities."

[Rasputin]

Added Najmeh Bozorgmehr, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy: "He's brave, but maybe too brave.

"He speaks for radical reformists who seem to be marginalized in today's Iran. Ahmadinejad's agenda is now dominant in Iran."

Yet analysts also agree that there is no one with wider appeal among the opposition -- even though Ganji does not see himself as a leader.

"No other dissident has emerged in the last 27 years, since the revolution, who has the respect of all the disparate elements of Iranian society, from Revolutionary Guardsmen and basij [volunteers], senior clergy and religious intellectuals, to the secular and religious middle class within Iran and the strong Iranian exile communities in Europe and North America," said Karim Sadjadpour, Iran analyst for the Crisis Group, an independent nonpartisan organization committed to preventing conflict and based in Brussels. "The fact that Ganji is held in such high esteem by all of these disparate actors is really quite remarkable."

At a time when many intellectuals and dissidents are opting for temporary jobs abroad or low profiles at home, Ganji plans to return to Tehran soon to make more noise.

"My place is inside Iran. I have to go back and struggle from inside," he said.

During his last trip abroad in 2000 for a conference in Berlin, Ganji was warned that he would be arrested if he returned. "I went back, was arrested, and I don't regret it," he said.

"I told them from the beginning that it's a two-side cost," he added. "They imprison me and I pay the cost. But when I talk about them, they also pay a cost. And when they imprisoned me for six years, the cost was higher to them."

[Sepideh_UK]

Bichare che sakhti keshid.

[Rasputin]

As was expected not many people responded to Ganji's call for a hunger strike in defense of three political prisoners. This idea did not have the desired outcome for various reasons.

Not many people know Ganji and knowing about him alone does not necessarily mean many would agree or even sympathize with his views; whatever they may be. Many Iranians living outside Iran are too busy with their lives and are not concerned with such issues that Ganji raises. For them it is inconceivable to spend three days fasting for those with whom they cannot identify or haven't heard of at all.

Ganji does not seem to realize that there are people who do not care which group of politicians runs their country as long as they can lead a peaceful life. Not the peace that Ganji idealizes, but the peace of mind that has nothing to do with the issues raised in Ganji's writings or speeches. They hate provocation of any kind. They are interested in their own well being only and do not want to be troubled by the thought that someone gets a prize for his/her valour or somebody does not get fare treatment some place on the face of the earth. In short, they do not see life in political or ideological terms.

There is a huge gap between what Ganji considers of importance namely, transformation of cultural values in Iran and what Iranians living in other countries see as their top prorioties. Many left Iran a generation ago and have built different lifestyles in other countries. Culturally they would feel out of place in today's Iran after such a long absence. Their attachment to Iran is essentially a romantic one and they do not perceive the whole situation in a simplistic manner as Ganji would like to present it to them.

Many Iranian expatriates do not care to know who Kant is and what real or fake Islams are about. They want to live their lives undisturbed by such irrelavent ideas unworthy of their time and attention. Most expatriates escaped the Iranian situation mainly because they did not want to deal with the likes of Ganji-once a harbinger of death and destruction and now a global peacemaker-no matter what side they represent. They are fed up with turncoats of all kinds. Ganji reminds them of the situation in Iran after 1979 and the horrible times they went through.

The time when, whether you cared about politics or not, there was always somebody in your face telling you what was righ or wrong and how to live you life. Three days may not seem very long back in Iran, but in more technologically advanced societies people plan things much ahead of time.

Even if we assume there may have been people sympathetic to Ganji's cause, giving them a few weeks' notice is not enough understanding their busy schedules. There is not much trust in former memebers or supporters of the Isalmic government among most Iranian expatriates and it would take more than Ganji's jail term to convince them to pour into the streets of major cities of the world and demand the release of political prisoners.

For the past twenty-seven years and as a result of being displaced both physically and culturally many have suffered more than what Ganji has, allegedly, gone through. Some even consider the likes of Ganji agents provocateur whose only objectives are to disturb the hard-earned, peaceful and comfortable lives they have outside of Iran. There is no trust whatsoever in those who pose as saviors. What can Ganji or his ideas possibly offer them that they cannot get or do not already have?

Probably, another important factor for Iranian expats in not heeding Ganji's call which ended in an embarrassing failure of this highly symbolic gesture was that a large number of them want to travel back to Iran and they are not ready to compromise the luxury of enjoying their life abroad and visiting their relatives in Iran. This is understandable given the situation in Iran and the highly publicized nature of the hunger strike.

Also there are Iranians living abroad who still have their businesses in Iran and attending such gatherings might prove detrimental to maitaining their business interests there. Not all opposition groups agree with Ganji's strategy for a regime change. Very few people, if any at all, from among these groups are willing to bestow a leadership position upon him.

Though Ganji does not openly declare his real intention of wanting to enjoy such a role, this is quite obvious in his writings which carry all the hallmarks of an ambitious man seeking to transform the Iranian regime into a secular one by peaceful means. He claims that it is possible to achieve this great task without the presence of any liberal and democractic institutions that are essential for such transformation and could guarantee its maintenance afterward. He claims this can be achieved by only having homes and schools that can offer better education, as if families and schools are institutions that can be detached from the rest of the social institutions.

Every now and then he denies cherishing any political or leadership ambitions. His ferrocious attack on all opposition groups abroad, especially those who are for a regime change through violent means prove otherwise. Sometimes implied and at times overt, his criticism is a clever ploy to divert attention from his real aims, leaving no opposition group immune. He has the stage now, so he uses it to lash out at those who hold different views from him. And this is from an intellectual who, on page three of his Third Manifest, syas, "We should not see our views as superior to those of others." Then he ceases the moral high ground and chastises other groups and organizations for their unforgivable mistakes.

When, in number nine of his Fundamentals of the Movement for Democratic Transformation in Iran, he asserts, "We are to blame. (az maust ke bar maust.)" he is ideed, hypocritically, putting the blame on others and not himself. How can anyone blame him for anything. After all he is the one proposing these theories. In fact, he makes believe he has paid his dues and that is why he is getting the kind of attention he has been receiving so far among different circles.

Ganji does not need to mention the fact that one of the mistakes many Iranian opposition groups made was that in their fervor to criticize the Iranian regime they inadvertently rose in his support without having a clear understanding of who he is and what his ideological and political objectives are. They made his case known to the rest of the world to the extent that the U. S. president, Geoerge Bush called for his unconditional release from prison.

Some even consciously overlooked Ganji's ideological flaws and ambiguous and inconsistent theories simply because they could use Ganji's case to unleash their attcks on the regime in Iran. It did not take long for those groups to realize they were barking at the wrong tree. Most Iranians abroad have become naturalized citizens of the countries where they live and have been sworn in as such.

Given the sensitivity of the Iranian situation at the moment and Ganji's brand of Islam, there are Iranians who prefer not to be seen as sympathetic toward a cause that may entail misunderstandings among people they work or associate with. By rising in defense of only three political prisoners, Ganji, in his own hypocritical way, tried to disavow any knowledge of other prisoners of conscience. Perhaps it meant as a disclaimer before leaving Iran.

This was the biggest blow to his call for a hunger strike. He alienated many groups which had called for his unconditional release from jail. By doing this he was trying to show that he did not want to be identified with certain so-called revolutionary or terrorist groups or any other opposition groups that might have ideological differences with him. This was a conscious distinction that, due to his inconsistent views, he would like to see recognized, but cannot afford at the moment. Later on he called for the release of others as well. This call came too late and he had isolated himself already.

Last but not least, many Iranians did not know whether they ought to believe Ganji's theories or accept his invitation to join the hunger strike. On page three of his Third Manifest when talking about what he calls, "Negation of Ideological Totalitarianism" Ganji states that, "No one has the right to impose his/her views in this realm and what he/she considers pain or suffering should not be seen as the cause of another person's pain and suffering." Of course, this includes intellectuals as well. And he says this after he has already said that, "The goal of politics and itellectualism is that of alleviating pains and sufferings of humanity."

[Rasputin]

Letter to America

My brief journey to your beautiful and amazing country began in New York City with a symbolic hunger strike in front of United Nations headquarters. Its purpose was to bring to the world's attention the plight of political prisoners in my country, Iran. We demand that all political prisoners in Iran be freed. I am certain that you appreciate our desire for freedom; it was, after all, the main principle upon which your country was founded.

My American journey commenced shortly after I was released from prison in Iran. I spent six years behind bars on the bogus charge of endangering national security. I came here bearing a message from a movement whose members are hard at work promoting the values of democracy, human rights, social justice and civil liberties. We want our country to play a positive role in promoting peace, security and cooperation in the region. To achieve our goals, we need the support of the entire world, particularly your vast and powerful country.

To end the tensions between our countries, we appeal to your natural sense of independence, liberty and fairness -- to your belief that the pursuit of happiness is not just the prerogative of some classes or nations. Happiness, peace and security can be achieved and sustained when we succeed in making these values universal. The sense of physical pain as well as injury to our sense of human dignity and self-esteem are common to us all. No less common is our shared sense of peace, security, joy and laughter.

The history of the United States as a nation begins with the establishment of a polity based upon a constitution. In modern Iran, that is still a relatively new idea. Although it dates to our Constitutional Revolution of 1906, we have in fact achieved only some of the goals of that revolution. We are, a century later, still struggling to create a polity based on a constitution and the rule of law.

Even the 1979 revolution could not turn this dream into reality. The political and ideological forces that came to dominate that revolution denied the people the right to exercise their free will. The official ideology of the ruling clerical regime considers all humans to be less than adult and says that without the supervision of the clergy, they will act like children, if not madmen. According to this clerical theory, the people are most virtuous when they are most docile.

This is similar to the concept of the ruler as shepherd and guardian, and the people as flock. The official ideology of the Islamic regime calls for fully implementing this idea in the political domain. The idea is not, of course, limited to the world of Islam. Religious fundamentalism, whether it appears in Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Buddhist hue, shares the desire to humiliate the people and deny them their rights.

In Iran, we hope to achieve our goal of a new polity and a new constitution not by violence but by following a peaceful and democratic path. And in this struggle we need moral support from all freedom-loving people around the world -- particularly the United States.

We want the world to know that our rulers do not represent the Iranian people and that their religion is not the religion of the entire nation. We ask that in shaping its policies toward the Iranian regime, the United States not overlook the interests of Iranian civil society. In particular, we hope that America listens to those in Iran who fear that policies intended to contain the current crisis might in fact lead to a greater crisis, and to war.

We are convinced that the outbreak of a new war in the Middle East, particularly against a large and populous country such as Iran, would destabilize the region and the world. And it would deprive us of the chance to found a peaceful and democratic political order. We are also against policies, such as economic sanctions, that bring extraordinary hardship to the lives of ordinary Iranians.

It is both possible and desirable to solve the problems between the United States and Iran through direct talks. Such diplomacy will best serve the interests of the American and Iranian people if it is conducted in a transparent fashion. This transparency would not only make it impossible for advocates of war to increase tensions but also would help isolate them. Iranian democrats are opposed to secret diplomacy.

If, in the 1980s, the United States had pursued a policy of never establishing ties with enemies of human rights, and if it had given priority to the interests of civil society, it could be reaping the benefits of a successful foreign policy today. And the danger of terrorism would have been less than it is now. In fighting nuclear proliferation, all countries must be treated equally. The Iranian people do not accept double standards in this matter.

We believe the government in Tehran is seeking a secret deal with the United States. It is willing to make any concession, provided that the United States promises to remain silent about the regime's repressive measures at home. We don't want war; nor do we favor such a deal. We hope that the regime will not be allowed to suppress its people, foment a crisis in the region or continue with its nuclear adventurism.

But the dangers of the Tehran regime are not limited to the nuclear question. The regime is dangerous mostly because it is willing to brutally trample on the democratic and human rights of the Iranian people. It is dangerous because it is willing to create gender apartheid in the name of religion and to suppress religious and ethnic minorities. Finally, it is dangerous because it considers all forms of dissent unforgivable sins. The real goal of the nuclear program is to make these policies permanent. In its negotiations with the Iranian regime, the West must not overlook this important fact.

Today I stand among a large number of Iranians who live in the United States. Most are now citizens of this country, educated and successful. They owe their success not just to their resourcefulness and hard work but also to the admirable ability of American society to accept strangers and immigrants on its shores, and to America's cultural tolerance. The large community of Iranians in America is imbued with affection for it. They, as well as the people of Iran, hope that political conflicts will be resolved and replaced by bonds of friendship and peaceful cooperation.

[Rasputin]

[donsaeid]

edited

[Rasputin]

In adam-e badi nist,ta alan kheili chizi azash behem goftan va ziad azash khoundam va dar moredesh ziad invar unvar kardam. yek adam-i osoul garast ! nokteh moheme hadafesh ineh keh kheili sadeh migeh,uni keh mosalmuneh beh kareh khodesh va unikeh kari nemikhad beh eslam dashteh basheh,beh kareh khodesh ! migeh,din bayad az syasat joda basheh keh dar jame'eh har do ta betounan naghshe khodesho dashteh bashan va ta betavanand kar konand.

Inha harfe badi nist ! montahay-e marateb,yeki seri dastan dor va varesh hast keh adam ro behesh mashkuk mikoneh,keh inha ham belakhareh ma'alum khahad shod.harfash hastan keh mano bishtar jazb mikonand,inkeh hala ghablan Pasdar boudeh va nemidunam adam kosh boudeh va az in harfa, hamounjur keh balatar goftam,ba'adan malum misheh !

[donsaeid]

edited

[Rasputin]

Nemisheh beh un sourat adama ro injuri ghezavat kard Saeid jan.. hamounjour keh khedmatet arz kardam,bayad did dar ayandeh cheh khahad shod,har ki dorough gou basheh va khata kar basheh,motmaen bash keh kheili zoud khodesho neshoun mideh :=) .