Iran’s President At UN: “Extremism Creators Need To Make An Apology.”

Posted on September 25, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

ocean11Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani addressed the United Nations recently on extremism/terrorism in the Middle East, coming to an agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy program, and a variety of other issues. What follows is the transcript and then a video with the complete address.

In the name of God
Thank God, the Lord of the Two Worlds and the Prayer and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
At outset, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on your well-deserved election as the president of the 69th Session of the General Assembly.
I also express my appreciation to H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon, for all his efforts.
It is my genuine hope that this year’s Session of the General Assembly brings the world, in its current critical situation, a step closer to security and tranquility of human being, which is of course a fundamental goal of the United Nations.
Mr. President, I am coming from a region of the world whose many parts are currently burning in fire of extremism and excess.
To the East and West of my country, extremists threaten our neighbors, resort to violence and shed blood.
They of course do not speak a single language; they are not of a single skin color and not of a single nationality; they have come to the Middle East from around the world.
They do however have a single ideology: “violence and extremism”. They also have a single goal: “the destruction of civilization, giving rise to Islamophobia and creating a fertile ground for further intervention of foreign forces in our region”.
I deeply regret to say that terrorism has become globalized: “From New York to Mosul, from Damascus to Baghdad, from the Easternmost to the Westernmost parts of the world, from Al-Qaeda to Daesh”.
The extremists of the world have found each other and have put out the call: “extremists of the world unite”. But are we united against the extremists?!
Extremism is not a regional issue that just the nations of our region would have to grapple with; extremism is a global issue. Certain states have helped creating it and are now failing to withstand it.
Currently our peoples are paying the price. Today’s anti-Westernism is the offspring of yesterday’s colonialism. Today’s anti-Westernism is a reaction to yesterday’s racism.
Certain intelligence agencies have put blades in the hand of madmen, who now spare no one.
All those who have played a role in founding and supporting these terror groups must acknowledge their errors that have led to extremism.
They need to apologize not only to the past but also to the next generation.
To fight the underlying causes of terrorism, one must know its roots and dry its source fountains.
Terrorism germinates in poverty, unemployment, discrimination, humiliation and injustice.
And it grows with the culture of violence.
To uproot extremism, we must spread justice and development and disallow the distortion of divine teachings to justify brutality and cruelty.
The pain is made greater when these terrorists spill blood in the name of religion and behead in the name of Islam.
They seek to keep hidden this incontrovertible truth of history that on the basis of the teachings of all divine prophets, from Abraham and Moses and Jesus to Mohammed (PBUH), taking the life of a single innocent life is akin to killing the whole humanity.
I am astonished that these murderous groups call themselves an Islamic group. What is more astonishing is that the Western media, in line with them, repeats this false claim, which provokes the hatred of all Muslims.
Muslim people who everyday recall their God as merciful and compassionate and have learned lessons of kindness and empathy from their Prophet, see this defamation as part of an Islamophobic project.
The strategic blunders of the West in the Middle-East, Central Asia, and the Caucuses have turned these parts of the world into a haven for terrorists and extremists.
Military aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and improper interference in the developments in Syria are clear examples of this erroneous strategic approach in the Middle East.
As non-peaceful approach, aggression, and occupation target the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people, they result in different adverse psychological and behavioral consequences that are today manifested in the form of violence and murder in the Middle East and North Africa, even attracting some citizens from other parts of the world.
Violence is currently being spread to other parts of the world like a contagious disease.
We have always believed that democracy cannot be transplanted from abroad; democracy is the product of growth and development; not war and aggression. Democracy is not an export product that can be commercially imported from the West to the East. In an underdeveloped society, imported democracy leads only to a weak and vulnerable government.
When Generals step into a region, do not expect diplomats to greet them warmly; when war begins, diplomacy tends to end. When sanctions set in, deep hatred for those imposing them also begins. When the atmosphere of the Middle East is securitized, the answer will be of the same nature as well.
The interests of Western countries in our region are tied to their recognition of beliefs and the desire of the people for democratic governance in the region. The experience of creation of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and modern extremist groups have demonstrated that one cannot use extremist groups to counter an opposing state and remain impervious to the consequences of rising extremism. The repetition of these mistakes despite many costly experiences is perplexing.
Let’s recall that Iran had invited everyone to “dialogue” before the criminal act of September 11th, and also called for “a world against violence and extremism” before the outbreak of the current violent atrocities. Perhaps in the past year, few people could forecast the fire that would rage today.
But now uninhibited violence and extremism presents an imminent threat to the world.
It is self-evident that without an accurate understanding of how the current condition came about we will not be able to find the right solutions. Today, again, I shall warn against the spread of extremism and the danger posed by the inadequate understanding and incorrect approach to this phenomenon.
The Middle East longs for development and is weary of war. It is the natural right of the peoples of the fertile lands of the Middle East to live in peace and prosperity. In the past, colonialism denied them this right and, today; the shadow of war and violence threatens their security.
There are moderate politicians and elites in our region who enjoy the confidence of their peoples. They are neither anti-Western nor pro-Western. While aware of the role of colonialism in the backwardness of their nations, they are not neglectful of the role of their nations in reaching the development they seek.
They do not absolve the West from its misdeeds, but are also aware of their own failings. These leaders can take positions of active leadership by attracting the confidence of the people in their societies and establish the strongest national and international coalitions against violence.
The voices of these leaders are the true voices of moderation in the Islamic world; the familiar sound of an Afghan tired of war; an Iraqi victim of extremism, a Syrian fearful of terrorism; and a Lebanese worried over violence and sectarianism. I believe this is a strategic mistake, if countries claiming leadership of the coalition do so to continue their hegemony in the region. Obviously, since the pain is better known by the countries in the region, better they can form coalition, and accept to shoulder the responsibility of leadership to counter violence and terrorism.
And if other nations wish to take action against terrorism, they must come to their support. I warn that if we do not muster all our strengths against extremism and violence today, and fail to entrust the job to the people in the region who can deliver, tomorrow the world will be safe for no one.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Last year, I tried to fulfill the role of my country in the realization of peace at both the regional and international levels by putting forward a proposal about “a world against Violence and Extremism”, which was met with general support.
In the tumultuous and chaotic region of the Middle East, Iran is one of the most tranquil, secure and stable nations. All the nations of the region have to keep in mind that we are in the same boat.
Thus, we need broad cooperation with regard to social and political as well as security and defense issues with a view to reaching common and durable understandings. Had we had greater cooperation and coordination in the Middle East, thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza would not have been fallen victim to Zionist regime’s aggression.
We consider interaction and confidence building among states of the region as fundamentally essential for conflict resolution. We support any measure to promote cooperation between Islamic nations to combat extremism, threats, and aggression, and in this connection, are prepared to play our permanent constructive and positive role.
Mr. President,
The oppressive sanctions against Iran go on in continuation of a strategic mistake against a moderate and independent nation under the current sensitive condition in our region.
During the last year, we have engaged in the most transparent dialogue to build confidence regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. We placed serious and honest negotiations on the agenda, not as a result of sanctions or threat but rather because of the will of our people.
We are of the view that the nuclear issue could only be resolved through negotiation, and those who may think of any other solution are committing a grave mistake. Any delay in arriving at a final agreement only raises the costs; not only at our expense but also at the expense of the economy and trade of the other parties as well as the development and security prospects of our region.
No one should doubt that compromise and agreement on this issue is in the best interest of everyone especially that of the nations of the region. The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 have continued during the past year with seriousness and optimism on both sides.
According to all international observers, the Islamic Republic of Iran has carried out its commitments in good faith. Although, some of the observations and actions of our counterparts have created certain doubts regarding their determination and realism, we hope that the current negotiations lead to a final accord in the short amount of time left. We are committed to continue our peaceful nuclear program, including enrichment, and to enjoy our full nuclear rights on Iranian soil within the framework of international law.
We are determined to continue negotiations with our interlocutors in earnest and good faith, based on mutual respect and confidence, removal of concerns of both sides as well as equal footing and recognized international norms and principles. I believe mutual adherence to the strict implementation of commitments and obligations and avoidance of excessive demands in the negotiations by our counterparts is the prerequisite for the success of the negotiations.
A final accord regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program can serve as the beginning of multilateral collaboration aimed at promoting security, peace and development in our region and beyond. The people of Iran are devoted to certain principles and values at the apex of which are independence, development and national pride.
Our people evaluate the behavior of their government based on the same criteria. If this obvious national fact is not understood by our negotiating partners and they commit grievous miscalculations in the process, a historic and exceptional opportunity will be lost.
As you know, during the ongoing nuclear negotiations in this year, the Iranian government took some initiatives that created new favorable conditions, which resulted, at that phase, in the Geneva Joint Plan of Action. We are determined to continue our confidence building approach and our transparency in this process. If our interlocutors are also equally motivated and flexible, and we can overcome the problem and reach a longstanding agreement within the time remaining, then an entirely different environment will emerge for cooperation at regional and international levels, allowing for greater focus on some very important regional issues such as combating violence and extremism in the region.
Arriving at a final comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran will be a historic opportunity for the West to show that it does not oppose the advancement and development of others and does not discriminate when it comes to adhering to international rules and regulations. This agreement can carry a global message of peace and security, indicating that the way to attain conflict resolution is through negotiation and respect not through conflict and sanction.
Mr. President, Ladies, Gentlemen,
Last year the great nation of Iran broadly participated in the calm and impressive presidential election and endorsed the discourse of “Foresight, Hope, and Prudent Moderation.” Thereafter, they support their elected government in its effort in building the country.
While some of the countries around Iran have fallen prey to war and turmoil, Iran remains secure, stable and calm. My Government’s principled policy is to work towards constructive interactions with our neighbors on the basis of mutual respect and with emphasis on common interests.
The notion that Iran seeks to control other Muslim countries in the region is a myth fanned in the recent years in the context of an Iranophobic project. Those who make these claims need imaginary enemies to sustain tensions and sow division and conflict, thus, in this way, pushing for the redeployment of national resources away from development. We work towards putting an end to delusional Iranophobia, setting the stage for building strategic partnerships with our neighbors.
In conclusion, last year I warned against the expansion of violence and extremism. This year too I warn that if the right approach is not undertaken in dealing with the issue at hand, we get closer to a turbulent and tumultuous region with repercussions for the whole world.
The right solution to this important quandary comes from within the region and regionally provided solution with international support and not from the outside the region.
God, the Almighty has promised those who have believed and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession to authority upon the earth and that their fears will turn into peace and security.
It is my sincerest hope that our generation endeavors to leave a more secure and developed earth as its legacy for the next generation.
I wish you all success. Thank you.


(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

BRICS Bank, Not ISIS, Driving Middle East War Planning?

Posted on September 17, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

World Map1In business, monopoly means exclusive control. In Brazil, days before the July shooting down of Malaysian Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine where all 298 people on board died, the BRICS Alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) met and announced establishment of a new global development bank to rival the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Federal Reserve, European Central Bank (ECB), Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other privately owned, largest central banks on Earth.

Until July 2014 and BRICS’ announcement, the world’s wealthiest corporate, personal and family stockholders in the international banking system enjoyed virtual exclusive control of the world’s financial market – in other words, a monopoly. Imagine another business sector company, say a grocery chain, which had no competitors in a major metropolitan area like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Mumbai, or other large population city on Earth. Imagine that grocery chain with 30 stores blanketing the city, without any competition whatsoever, and then another company decided to invest and build 30 stores in every sub-market which the formerly free-of-competition grocery chain had all for/to itself.

The grocery business example describes the BRICS/private central bank global competition which has begun; an international business competition on a scale the world has never seen. We are talking about the largest financial transactions, and the largest potential profits for those bankers who get the business, on this Earth. For  monopolistic banking institutions, nations have historically been their largest customers for loans.

In large part thanks to the information revolution and the internet, knowledge about international banking giants has become disseminated to every nation and region of the world; including criminal and greed related historical facts/aspects. Millions have become aware how entire nations have become drawn into high, often un-payable, levels of $multi-billion debt through arrangement of loans from the largest international financial institutions. Those same millions of men and women the world over have come to understand the corrupt motives too often involved in these highest dollar amount, national-debt-producing loans.

Through recent decades, these transactions of the greatest amounts have become surrounded with varying forms of negative circumstances in nations that have entered into this high-risk, high-stakes financial arena. Some of those negative consequences have included assassinations/overthrowing of democratically elected leaders, covert destabilization operations, overt warfare, government funds’ embezzlement/bribery, misdirection of loan proceeds to people/projects not in the interest of citizens, austerity inducing national debts, privatization of national industries/natural resource wealth, favorable-to banking/resource-extractive corporation laws/legislation, reduced social expenditures on health, education, nutrition, housing, etc., and other less-consequential but still negative actions.

As a direct result of millions of men and women becoming aware of these negative consequences of the historically monopolistic international banking mega-institutions, BRICS became formed, developed and announced an alternative global financial system, and it is this threat of losing market (nations) share that is behind military aggression/provocations today – including Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, the Middle East (Iraq and Syria), and elsewhere.

If the top managers from the grocery company mentioned – the company which previously enjoyed control of 100% of the market – decided to carry out violent actions against its new, formidable competitor company by destroying one or more of their physical, just-opened, store locations – killing innocent employees and customers in the process – that would obviously result in tremendously hot legal issues and life imprisonment for those responsible.

In small-scale examples like this, in the majority of instances where a competitor entertains thoughts of possible criminal action(s) against their strongest competitor(s) for market share, the law provides an effective deterrent and results in stable, competitive co-existence. International law, namely the agreed upon rules of the United Nations Security Council regarding military actions against sovereign member states, and the language contained in the United States Constitution requiring consent from Congress for acts of war – provide the same deterrent effect concerning state-generated wars of aggression (the supreme criminal act) and crimes against humanity.

The “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” was something which never occurred. It was a lie about a Vietnamese torpedo attack on an American ship in Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin – a “false flag event” – which launched the Vietnam War leading to some 58,000 American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese deaths. Only two out of 100 United States Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and one of them was Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright, who later remarked:

“Many Senators who accepted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution without question might well not have done so had they foreseen that it would subsequently be interpreted as a sweeping Congressional endorsement for the conduct of a large-scale war in Asia”.

J. William Fulbright (1905-1995) said the following about international law:

“Law is the essential foundation of stability and order both within societies and in international relations. As a conservative power, the United States has a vital interest in upholding and expanding the reign of law in international relations. Insofar as international law is observed, it provides us with stability and order and with a means of predicting behavior of those with whom we have reciprocal obligations. When we violate the law ourselves, whatever short-term advantage may be gained, we are obviously encouraging others to violate the law; we thus encourage disorder and instability and thereby do incalculable damage to our own long-term interests”.

In his book “The Arrogance of Power” (1966) Fulbright wrote:

“To criticize one’s country is to do it a service… Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism – a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation”.

And: “My question is whether America can overcome the fatal arrogance of power”.

Decades later, in 2003, the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration, with cooperation from Britain’s Tony Blair, lied to the world about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Hussein having responsibility for the attacks/events of September 11, 2001, and then launched a war, killing, according to some estimates, more than 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children. Some members of the United States Congress, like Senator J. William Fulbright before the Vietnam War historic catastrophe, voted against granting authorization for the use of military force to the Bush administration.

Of course, hindsight is always 20-20. If a lengthy, real debate had taken place to unveil the lies told by the Bush/Cheney/Blair group of war criminals, the horrific Iraq War II would never have been authorized, and the resentments and hatred which lead to formation of violent organizations bent on revenge would never have become developed. Can America now, in the words of J. William Fulbright, “overcome the fatal arrogance of power”?

Before this situation escalates militarily out-of-control like Vietnam and Iraq in the recent past, it is urgent for the people of America and the world to demand the truth about what is driving this movement toward war. To arrive at the truth, all viewpoints must become included in a serious, lengthy, and real debate focused on all relevant facts; on who is using their power to push for violence and war, why they are calling for war, and if it is out of true concern for the health and well-being of all men, women, and children living in Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East region.

It is unacceptable for humanity to allow any possibility of repeating the overwhelmingly horrific, destructive, dishonorable Vietnam or Iraq wars – where millions of innocent human beings perished in military conflicts initiated and perpetuated with deceptions. 

End it here. End it now.


(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)