|
The model to follow in the Iranian crisis |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 12 October 2007 |
By: Mohammad Amin
What recently happened in the Council of Europe, in many ways could be regarded as the model that the western policy should follow with regards to Iran.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe consisting of representatives of 47 European countries, recently hosted Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
To hear her points of view of the crisis, second largest political
group of the Council, the The European People's Party (EPP/CD) Group
officially invited the leader of the Iranian opposition.
Her speech in this Council was very revealing:
"Mr. President, we are meeting at a very critical time. One year ago I
said in this building that, the world is facing a dangerous cross road.
On one hand, the religious dictatorship is about to obtain the nuclear
bomb, and on the other, there is the possibility of a war in the
region."
....
"European governments are mistaken to think that the Iranian regime
could play a constructive role in the region and across the world. They
are mistaken to think they can contain the mullahs' terrorism and
fundamentalism. Through the policy of appeasement they are preparing
the grounds for a catastrophic war.
"I would like to ask you; What are the options? Should the
nuclear-armed mullahs be accepted as the new regional power? Or should
another catastrophic war break out in the region? Foreign military
intervention is not the solution for the Iranian crisis. To view
firmness towards the mullahs as warmongering, is nothing more than
repeating the mullahs' propaganda and political deception. To continue
to negotiate with the mullahs, would only give them the opportunity to
acquire the nuclear bomb.
"In addition to ruthless suppression at home, the barrier to change in
Iran is Europe's policy of appeasement. This policy results from three
factors: Economic interests, the failure to recognize the nature of the
regime and the belief in the myth of moderation, and the failure to
understand Iran's political landscape and the key role played by the
Iranian people and Resistance.
"Western government's submission to the mullahs' demand to include the
PMOI, the main component of the Resistance, in terrorist list has been
at the core of this policy. This label allows the Iranian regime to
justify the execution of its opponents. Above all, this label has caged
the main actor for change in Iran."
Maryam Rajavi's talks with the President, a number of Vice Presidents
and heads of committees of the Parliamentary Assembly focused on the
need for democratic change in Iran as the prerequisite for ending the
threats of the mullahs.
Mrs. Rajavi's views and activities were greatly appreciated especially
right after a speech by the mullahs' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at
the United Nations General Assembly. The world realized this regime has
no intention but to produce nuclear weapons, terrorize Middle East and
suppress Iranian people.
Mrs. Rajavi was also welcomed by Mr. Adrien Zeller president of the
Regional Council of Alsace who is the highest elected authority in the
region (one of the 22 French regions covering four provinces). Mr.
Zeler received Mrs. Rajavi at the Council where they discussed the
current situation Iran. In a statement issued by the office of the
Council's President subsequent to the meeting it is stated that Mr.
Zeler expressed his solidarity with Iranian people and their resistance
for freedom and supported Mrs. Rajavi's efforts to establish peace in
the Middle East and democracy and human rights in Iran.
During Mrs. Rajavi's visit to the Council there were widespread
criticisms to a planned visit by the mullahs' parliament speaker to the
Parliamentary Assembly. In a statement by 25 members, including 12 from
the French National Assembly, parliamentarians were asked to boycott
the speech by the mullahs' parliament speaker Haddad Adel.
The Iranian regime's ambassador in Paris was in Strasbourg at the time.
After checking with the offices of a number of Parliamentarians, he
realized that the presence Adel at the Council would be a political
disaster. Therefore he immediately canceled his visit to the Council.
The truth of the matter is that European people's representatives did
not let the speaker of the mullahs' parliament to travel to Strasbourg.
This issue is important since:
First, the opposition of the Parliamentarians to the presence of Adel
at the Council is negating the resolution by the same Council on June
28 where they demanded opening talks with the Iranian regime. The
Representatives now realize that engaging a regime that is taking a
stab at the international community would bear no fruit.
Second, when the mullahs' regime objected to Mrs. Rajavi's trip to
Strasbourg, the President of the Council resisted and talked about the
principle of having dialogue with the opposition.
Third and most importantly, representatives of the European people at
the Assembly not only objected the religious fascism in words but also
showed the most effective objection in their deeds, that is opening the
doors to the opposition.
The main reason for West's confusion in their policy towards Iran is
that they do not engage the opposition. Instead, for the sake of short
term economic interests and due to shortsightedness they have blocked
any democratic change in Iran using the terrorist list. Therefore what
the Parliamentarians did at the Assembly must be a pattern to follow in
the Western policy: Closing the doors on the mullahs' regime and
opening it to the Iranian people and their resistance.
Mohammad Amin, is an expert on Iranian affairs who writes for international news media and journals
|
English
Francais
Deutsch
Italiano
العربيّة
