fredag, september 29, 2006


Idag utsåg kultuministern Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi en ny chef för regimens nyhetsbyrå, det blev Jalal Fayyazi. Jalal Fayyazi är utbildad ingenjör men har tidigare engagerad i "coordination council of Khorasan Islami Propaganda". Han verkar inte direkt ha fått jobbet för att han kvalifierad till det utan säkerligen för att han står Ahmadinejad och Saffar-Harandi nära.

Iran close to nuclear suspension

Iran is close to an agreement that would include a suspension of uranium enrichment but wants the deal to include a provision that the temporary halt be kept secret, according to Bush administration officials.

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, has been working with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on the enrichment-suspension deal that could be completed this week.

Disclosure of talks on the secret element of the arrangement comes as Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani are set to meet today or tomorrow in Europe when the deal could be completed, said officials opposed to the deal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

According to the officials, the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran would be for 90 days, so additional talks could be held with several European nations.

Many U.S. officials are opposing the agreement as a further concession to Iran, which continues to defy a United Nations' call for a complete halt to uranium enrichment. A Security Council resolution had given Iran until Aug. 31 to stop its enrichment program or face the imposition of international sanctions. Tehran ignored the deadline, but diplomacy has continued.

Some in the State Department are supporting the deal, which they view as a step toward achieving a complete halt to uranium enrichment.

However, other officials said that keeping any suspension secret would be difficult and that it would drag the United States into further negotiations with Iran.

Iran is seeking to continue talks on its nuclear program while attempting to avoid the imposition of sanctions, something the Bush administration favors but that several other key states, including Russia, oppose.

The United States would then be faced with the difficult position of negotiating against the 90-day deadline, a position that favors Iran.

"The Iranians are very good negotiators," said one official close to the issue.

The officials opposed to the deal want any agreement on uranium suspension to be announced publicly.

Also, any suspension of enrichment would require International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify that work has stopped at Iranian facilities. The inspections would likely be disclosed, exposing any secret arrangement with Iran on suspension.

Failing to publicly announce the suspension also would be a face-saving measure for the Iranian government.

Officials said President Bush is not happy with the secrecy demand, although he continues to support the use of diplomacy to solve the problem.

Asked about the pending deal, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in an e-mail, "The terms laid out by the Security Council are clear: Iran needs to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, and it needs to do so in a verifiable way. If it does, we can start negotiations. If it doesn't, we move to sanctions. It is a clear and unambiguous standard."

In New York yesterday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that talks between European and Iranian officials were on track and that a negotiated settlement is possible.

"I think very soon they will have the next round of discussions," Mr. Mottaki told the Associated Press, noting that "there was good connection between the two sides" after Iran's Aug. 22 response to a package of incentives offered by six nations -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- for a halt in enrichment efforts.

A recent report by the IAEA said that as late as Aug. 24, Iran had continued to feed uranium hexafluoride into its 164-centrifuge cascade, which is used to enrich uranium. The report also said that Iran is building additional facilities, including a second 164-centrifuge cascade and that work on a plutonium-based heavy-water reactor is continuing.

The Bush administration is convinced that Iran's nuclear program is intended to develop weapons, contrary to repeated statements from Iranian leaders that the program is aimed at producing electrical power for civilian use.

The Bush administration wants to impose internationally approved economic sanctions on Iran in the next several weeks, based on the IAEA report and Iran's missing the deadline to halt enrichment.

Homosexuell avvisas till Iran..

Den svenska flyktingpolitiken visar sitt fulatryne igen! Nu har genierna med makten över liv och död fått för sig att det är rätt lugnt att leva som homosexuell i Iran. Det baserat på en UD rapport som säger att homosexuella kan "undgå fara om de lever ett diskret och tillbakadraget liv". Med andra ord, homosexuella kan leva relativt fritt om de inte är homosexuella.

Sen att regimen avrättar homosexuella genom att stening och hängning, det är inget som oroar.

Men det sista ordet är säkerligen inte sagt!!!

torsdag, september 28, 2006

IRNA och Bushehr...

Konflikt mellan IRNA och kulturministeriet

Regimens nyhetsbyrå IRNA kommer att byta chef. Den nuvarande chefen Ahmad Khademolmelleh kommer att avgå tillföljd av en konflikt mellan honom och kulturministeriet. Nyligen arresterades en av Khademolmellehs journalister och har utsatts för tortyr under anklagelsen att han ska ha agerat mot ”nationens säkerhet”. Flera gånger tidigare har också regimensmän och kulturministeriet varnat Iranska journalister för att vara för nyfikna och för att publicera kritiska artiklar.

Första kärnkraftsanläggningen i drift mars 2007

Regimen meddelar att man landet kommer att ha sin första kärnkrafts anläggning i drift redan mars 2007. Det handlar om kärnkraftsverket i Bushehr som regimen byggt med hjälp från Ryssland. Det är alltså hela åttamånader tidigare än beräknat.

tisdag, september 26, 2006

Crackdown On Media In Iran Continues

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) is deeply concerned by news journalists in Iran have been placed under more pressure by government statements that imply journalists who travel overseas are engaged in spying.

According to IFJ affiliate, the Association of Iranian Journalists (AIJ), the Minister of Information released a statement this week which said the government’s intelligence service had found the West was recruiting journalists, students and workers for spying, by sending them overseas under the guise of research or study.

The AIJ has said this will put more pressure on journalists as any foreign trips could make them targets for accusations of spying.

“This sort of underhanded pressure from the government of Iran is particularly worrying in light of the recent closures of newspapers and increased crackdown on media,” IFJ President Christopher Warren said.

The Shargh daily newspaper was reportedly banned on September 11, adding to the ever-increasing list of banned publications in Iran and leaving many journalists jobless. The AIJ held a meeting on September 19 protesting the recent closures of newspapers.

“These recent incidents demonstrate Tehran’s distaste for freedom of speech, and its unacceptable methods for dealing with independent voices in the media,” IFJ President Christopher Warren said.

“Media workers all over Iran continue to face strict censorship, intimidation and often imprisonment for nothing more than doing their job,” he said.

“We call on the government of Iran to implement safeguards for journalists and press freedom and to immediately release all journalists jailed for their reporting,” Warren said. The IFJ, the organisation representing more than 500,000 journalists in over 115 countries, stands in solidarity with Iranian journalists in their struggle for press freedom and editorial independence.

lördag, september 23, 2006

HRW: Iran: Juvenile Offenders Face the Hangman's Noose

The scheduled executions in Iran this week of two juvenile offenders – and their last-minute reprieve – highlight the country's status as the world leader in juvenile executions, Human Rights Watch said.

In what would have been at least the 15th such execution in the past five years, Sina Paymard was scheduled to be put to death by hanging on September 20, two weeks after his 18th birthday. The second youth was Ali Alijan, now 19. Each was convicted of a murder committed under the age of 18. According to Paymard's lawyer, the sentencing court did not properly consider evidence that Paymard suffered from a mental disorder.

Both youths received reprieves on Wednesday by the families of the victims, who exercised their option under Iran's Islamic penal code to seek blood money in lieu of the death penalty. If an offer of blood money meets certain formalities – it must be in writing and notarized, for example – and the individual found responsible for the crime pays, there is no possibility
of imposing the death penalty in the future for that crime. Capital punishment is by hanging for most crimes in Iran.

"Although these two youths were spared by last-minute acts of mercy, Iran has earned the dubious distinction as the world leader in executing child offenders," said Clarisa Bencomo, children's rights researcher on the Middle East at Human Rights Watch. "The Iranian authorities should abolish this repugnant practice at once."

When a defendant has been sentenced to death in Iran, the victim's family members are asked just before execution is carried out if they wish to offer forgiveness. Paymard's pardon came after he was granted a final request to play the ney, a Middle Eastern flute. According to press accounts, his playing greatly affected those present to witness the execution, including the victim's family members.

A third youth, who was either 20 or 21 at the time of his execution this week, was not granted a pardon by family members. It is not known whether he was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime for which he was convicted.

Two core international human rights treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18. Iran has ratified both treaties.

Iran has executed more juvenile offenders in the last five years than any other nation. It is known to have executed 14 juvenile offenders since 2001, including at least one earlier this year and eight in 2005. About 30 juvenile offenders are on death row in the country.

The United States, China, and Pakistan are the only other countries known to have put juvenile offenders to death since 2001. Pakistan has conducted two such executions, including one this year. China has executed two juvenile offenders. Five juvenile offenders were put to death in the United States during this period before the U.S. Supreme Court declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional in March 2005.

For five years, Iran's parliament has considered legislation that would amend the civil code to prohibit executions for crimes committed under the age of 18. Human Rights Watch, which opposes capital punishment in all circumstances, urged Iran's leadership to support these reforms.

For more of Human Rights Watch's work on Children's Rights, please

fredag, september 22, 2006

Fundamentalisterna tar hårdare grepp om utbildningen...

Enligt regimens utbildningsminister så kommer regimen att inom kort att sparka alla manliga lärare som arbetar i flickskolor. Samtidigt planerar utbildningsdepartementet att anställa 4000 mullor och krigs veteraner under året för att öka islamiseringen i skolan, 500 av dessa 4000 kommer att anställas inom bara några månader. Samtidigt ska Koran studier nu bli obligatorisk för alla barn och deras mödrar. Samtidigt har regimen också öppnat för att tillåta Revolutionsgardet och Bassijs att starta sina egna skolor.

Utbildningsdepartementets dekret kommer efter att Ayatollah Makarem Shiraz krävt en ökad islamisering av skolväsendet för att stoppa västs försök att ”infiltrera det Iranska samhället”.

två olika metoder...

Enligt regimen ska den Norske utrikesministern Jonas Gahr Store ha lovat Irans utrikesminister Manouchehr Mottaki att inte stödja några som helst sanktioner mot Iran. Australien kan däremot tänka sig att införa finansiella sanktioner mot Iran även om säkerhetsrådet röstar mot sanktioner. Uttalandet från Australiens utrikesminister Alexander Downer kom innan hans möte med Irans utrikesminister Manouchehr Mottaki i samband med generalförsamlingens möte.

NY TIMES: Iran’s Leader Relishes 2nd Chance to Make Waves

When President Bush and his advisers decided to allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran into the country to address the United Nations, their strategy was simple: containment.

There would be no visits to other cities where he could denounce Washington or question Israel’s legitimacy. There would be no opportunities, beyond his speech to the General Assembly, to turn questions about his nuclear intentions into repeated diatribes about America’s nuclear arsenal.

It turned out that Mr. Ahmadinejad had a Plan B.

The scope of his determination to dominate not only the airwaves but the debate became evident yesterday evening, when he entered a hotel conference room on the East Side with a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence.

Over the objections of the administration and Jewish groups that boycotted the event, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the man who has become the defiant face of Iran, squared off with the nation’s foreign policy establishment, parrying questions for an hour and three-quarters with two dozen members of the Council on Foreign Relations, then ending the evening by asking whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration.

Never raising his voice and thanking each questioner with a tone that oozed polite hostility, he spent 40 minutes questioning the evidence that the Holocaust ever happened — “I think we should allow more impartial studies to be done on this,” he said after hearing an account of an 81-year-old member, the insurance mogul Maurice R. Greenberg, who saw the Dachau concentration camp as Germany fell — and he refused to even consider Washington’s proposal for Russia to provide Iran with nuclear reactor fuel, and take it back once it is used. (Without the capacity to enrich fuel on its own soil Iran would be unable to make fuel suitable for a nuclear weapon.)

He traced the history of 50 years of unfilled deals with the United States, Germany, France and others — skipping over the Iranian revolution and the hostage-taking that followed — and concluded, “How can we rely on these partners.” His solution? The United States should shut down its own fuel production and “within five years, we will sell you our own fuel, with a 50 percent discount!” He settled back into his seat with a broad smile that some in the group described as a smirk.

The decision by the council’s president, Richard N. Haass, to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to the session touched off a rare outcry protest in an organization whose meetings are usually as staid as the portraits of long-forgotten diplomats on its walls.

Mr. Haass, who ran the policy planning branch of the State Department during Mr. Bush’s first term, first had to fend off senior administration officials who had argued that he should not give Mr. Ahmadinejad the legitimacy of a hearing — especially with the likes of Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under President Bush’s father, or Robert D. Blackwill, who directed Iraq policy at the White House under Condoleezza Rice.

“It’s fair to say that Dr. Rice thought this was a bad idea,” one senior State Department official said. “A really, really bad idea.”

So did leaders of several Jewish groups, whom Mr. Haass invited — and who promptly asked if the council would have invited Hitler in the 1930’s. “Some of us considered quitting to make it clear how offensive this is,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who was one of the Jewish leaders whose attendance Mr. Haass sought.

But after a flurry of phone calls, including with Elie Wiesel, the writer and Holocaust survivor, they decided against a mass resignation — particularly after the council made the session a “meeting” rather than a dinner. (There were light hors d’oeuvres on the side; Mr. Ahmadinejad never touched them.)

“It is more offensive to break bread with the guy,” Mr. Foxman said. “I thought dinner was crossing the line.”

But the council pointed out that it had served as host for many world leaders equally skilled at repressing dissidents, developing suspected weapons programs, shutting down a free press and denouncing Israel.

“We’ve had Castro,” said Lisa Shields, the council’s communications director, ticking off the gallery of leaders Washington considered rogues. “We’ve had Arafat, and Mugabe. We’ve had Gerry Adams.”

The greeting yesterday evening was not exactly overwhelming. There were no introductory handshakes, no diplomatic niceties. All of the Americans who were invited to attend, including four journalists, were members of the council. Iran’s effort to bring in television cameras was deflected, apparently because the council feared that the session would be used for political purposes in Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad is presumably eager to show that even if President Bush refused to meet him, he got his message across.

In fact he did — meeting academics in the morning and religious leaders at midday, and speeding from the council meeting for another television interview. He did most of this without leaving the Intercontinental Hotel on 48th Street in Manhattan.

The council would not say how many of the invitees had refused to attend. But members said they knew of more than a half-dozen, from the publisher Mort Zuckerman to the former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. It is unclear why some declined. A few claimed scheduling conflicts, rather than moral objections.

The handful who had a chance to quiz the Iranian president went out of their way, within the limits of diplomatic etiquette, to make clear to Mr. Ahmadinejad that they thought his characterizations of Israel and the Holocaust were repugnant and that his nuclear strategy was self-defeating. He gave no ground.

When Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Iran “did everything possible to destroy’’ efforts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the president said, “If you believe Iran is the reason for the failure, you are making a second mistake.’’ Why, he asked, should the Palestinians be asked to “pay for an event they had nothing to do with’’ in World War II, saying that they had nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews — if those killings, he added, had happened at all.

“In World War II about 60 million people were killed,’’ he said at one point, when pressed again on his refusal to accept that the Holocaust happened. “Two million were military. Why is such prominence given to a small portion of those 60 million?’’

A few minutes later, he asked a question himself: “In the Council on Foreign Relations, is there any voice of support for the Palestinians?’’

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s habit of answering every question about Iranian policy with a question about American policy was clearly wearing on some of the members, but at the end they acknowledged that he was about as skillful an interlocutor as they had ever encountered. “He is a master of counterpunch, deception, circumlocution,’’ Mr. Scowcroft said, shaking his head. Mr. Blackwill emerged from the conversation wondering how the United States would ever be able to negotiate with this Iranian government.

“If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are heading for a massive confrontation with Iran,” he said.

In fact, on the main issue speeding the two countries toward confrontation, Iran’s nuclear program, the president was unwilling to discuss specifics. He insisted that he was fully cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, even though it had pages of questions his government refused to answer.

Instead, he steered the whole conversation toward Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, ignoring an effort by Ashton B. Carter, a Harvard professor, to get him to answer whether the nuclear effort was worth the cost to Iranian society.

“The U.S. doesn’t speak for the whole world,’’ Mr. Ahmadinejad responded, noting that at a meeting of nonaligned nations in Cuba over the weekend “118 countries defended the right of Iran to enrich.’’

And as he left, it was with a jab to his hosts. “At the beginning of the session, you said you were an independent group,’’ he said. “But almost everything that I was asked came from a government position.’’ Then he smiled, thanked everyone and left the room with a light step.

torsdag, september 21, 2006

Något är snett..

Igår tvingades ett Iransk Boeing 707 att landa i Turkiet och Istanbul. Planet kom ifrån Venezuela där Ahmadinejad och hans ministrar varit på besök. Tydligen ska ministrar, vice ministrar och en del journalister ha befunnit sig på planet. Enligt Turkiska myndigheter ska planet ha saknat tillstånd och hölls på turkisk mark under flera timmar innan den till slut fått tillstånd att flyga över Turkiet. Den Iranska regimen klagade också över att man inte fick tillgång till mat eller dricka under hela tiden. Efteråt ska den Istanbuls viceborgmästare ha bett om ursäkt för ”missförståndet”.

Detta kan ha varit ett enkelt missförstånd, men det krävs ändå ganska mycket för att Turkiska myndigheter ska stoppa och tvinga ner ett officiellt Iranskt plan med en rad ministrar. För att sen inte ens ge ministrarna och personerna med diplomatpass vatten eller mat? Sen hade ursäkten varit verklig så hade väl den Turkiska staten inte bara skickat fram en viceborgmästare, eller? Något stämmer inte…

Ahmadinejads tal..

Här kommer Ahmadinejads tal inför FN: s generalförsamling. Hela talet ägnas istortsett åt att kritisera USA och Israel och innehåller egentligen inte mycket av värde. Men här är den ändå.. ;-)


Madame President, distinguished heads of state and government, distinguished heads of delegation, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I praise the merciful, all-knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran, and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community. I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God, quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.

The youth have a right to seek justice and the truth, and they have the right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility, and I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President, Excellencies, what afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity. The Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger. Some occupy the homeland of others thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes, their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country, and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity.

The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem. A, the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Some powers proudly announce the production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons in fact instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments?How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.

This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice and from the powerful not being contented with their own rights striving to devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake. Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators, other than the exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?B, occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities. Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife. There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the government of Iraq, only to be let loose under the various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the government of Iraq seek justice? Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine. The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the second world war. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants. It was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world who had not been even affected by the second world war, and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness.This is a great tragedy, and with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al- Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that the shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'etre of this regime, as it has.The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region.Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime, but these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worse yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime. Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?At the same time, a government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its ministers and its members of parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community. Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon. For 33 long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs, and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced. Meanwhile, some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily.We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a cease- fire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why? In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities? C, lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community.

Excellencies, I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends, including the production of nuclear bombs. And some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.Which organization or council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council as an instrument of threat and coercion is indeed a source of grave concern. Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the council, the condemnation of their opponents by the council. The question is: What can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the council to maintain security?

Excellencies, a review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that, regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful.Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility.For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value.

This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected government of the Palestinian people is treated, as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that apparently does not violate human rights.Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent upon the whim of certain major powers. Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a cease-fire.Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

The prevailing order of contemporary global interaction is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world, and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies, the question needs to asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account? Can a council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council, and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on the international decision-making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in the growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies, how long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies. The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today it is undeniable that the Security Council most critically and urgently needs legitimacy and effectiveness.It must be acknowledged that as long as the council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state.In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President, Excellencies, it is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of the divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety. Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill temperament, aggression and war will fade away.Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community."Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world. It is for this reason that we state: Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations. Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples driven by their divine nature intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of the Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and merciful God, who is the Creator of the universe, is also its Lord and ruler.Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression.All divine prophets, from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses, to the Prophet Jesus Christ, to the Prophet Mohammad have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world more than ever before longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity, and above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

onsdag, september 20, 2006

Ahmadinejad i NY!

Ahmadinejad har under de senaste dagarna befunnit sig på resande fot. Först hos sin gode vän Hugo Chavez och nu i New York för att hålla ett tal inför FN; s generalförsamling. Samtidigt försöker nu den republikanske kongressledamoten Rick Santorum att få CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) som också bjudit in Ahmadinejad att ställa in hans besök.

I ett uttalande skriver Santorum:

"President Ahmadinejad does not afford his own people the freedom of speech…By allowing him the opportunity to address a public forum in the United States, you would be sending the wrong message to the people of Iran."

CFR har också försökt få en rad judiska ledare att vara med på seminariet men samtliga har vägrat.

Ahmadinejad är också förbannad över att inte alla i hans följe fått visum till USA. Det rör sig tydligen om en rad journalister från Iran som ännu inte fått nåt beslut.

tisdag, september 19, 2006


Känns faktiskt underbart och nu när valrörelsen är över och Göran Persson förpassats till herrgården så har jag återigen tid för bloggen.

Ett par saker snabbt rörande det svenska valet:

Tyvärr verkar det som att Fredrik Malm inte får plats i riksdagen av egen kraf, även om han ändå gjort en riktigt starkt valrörelse. Men jag känner mig ändå ganska säker att Malm kommer att få en riksdagsplats efter att alla ministerposter och andra positioner är tillsatta. Fredrik Malm som riksdagsledamot skulle betyda väldigt mycket, en person med större engagemang för mellanöstern och frihet går nog inte att hitta. Däremot är jag oerhört glad över att Birgitta Ohlssons plats i Riksdagen är säkrad.

Annars så hoppas jag stenhårt på att även följande personer blir invalda:
Nina Larsson
Jarl Strömbäck
Johan Chytraeus

Lite Iran..

Som sagt har jag varit lite väl insnöad i den svenska valrörelsen att jag inte riktigt hängt med i vad som hänt utanför Sverige gränser. Däremot kan ingen ha missat Påvens tal där han tydligen ska ha kritiserat Islam och Muhammed. Har själv inte hört talet däremot så har Irans ”andlige ledare” Khamenei gjort det och han är arg.

Men det komiska är att Khamenei inte är arg på Påven utan han är arg på USA. För Khamenei är övertygad om att Påven blivit lurad av ”arroganta krafter” som syftar till att skapa spänning och oro mellan världens religioner.

tisdag, september 12, 2006

Birgitta Ohlsson...

سئوال از سوی نماینده پارلمان سوئد، بیرگیتا اولسون، ( نامزد شماره 2 حزب مردم درلیست انتخابات پارلمانی شهر استکهلم) که برای وزیر امورخارجه آقای یان الایسون طرح شده است
زنان محکوم به مرگ در ایرانطی 10 سال اخیر رژیم ایران بارها توسط سازمانهای مختلف سازمان ملل برای عدم رعایت حقوق بشر محکوم شده است.

سازمانهای حقوق بشری مانند عفو بین الملل و نگهبان حقوق بشر ، طی سالها گزارشات زیادی در مورد شرایط سخت حاکم بر کشور ارائه نموده اند

تعداد زیادی از فعالان اپوزیسیون و منتقدین رژیم به زندان افکنده شده اند.اتهامات عموما غیر عقلائی هستند. محکومیت ها برای گناهان جزئی علیه مقرارت ملایان بسیار شدید و بیرحمانه است. زنانی که از دستورات ملایان سرپیچی مینمایند، با مجازات بیشتری مواجه میشوند.
اخیرا یک بانوی ایرانی به اتهام زنا در اکتبر 2005 به مرگ محکوم گردیده است. مجازات از طریق سنگسار اعمال خواهد شد.
همچنین دادگاهی در تهران در ژانویه 2006 بانوی دیگری را به اتهام قتل به مرگ محکوم نموده است. او اعتراف نموده است که در مارس 2005 در یکی از پارکها ، یکی از سه مردی را که برای تچاوز به وی و یکی از بستگان نزدیکش تلاش مینمودند با چاقو به قتل رسانده است
با این پیش زمینه ها که برشمردم این سئوال را از وزیر امور خارجه مینمایم:

وزیر امور خارجه قصد دارد چه اقداماتی را برای توقف اجرای حکم اعدام این دو زن به عمل آورد؟

och på svenska:

Fråga från riksdagsledamot Birgitta Ohlsson, (kandidat nummer 2 på folkpartiets riksdagslista i Stockholms stad) ställd till utrikesminister Jan Eliasson.

Dödsdömda kvinnor i Iran

Under det senaste decenniet har den iranska regimen fördömts otaliga gånger av olika FN-organ för brott mot de mänskliga rättigheterna. Människorättsorganisationer som Amnesty International och Human Rights Watch har genom åren kontinuerligt avgivit rapporter om den svåra situationen i landet. Ett mycket stort antal oppositionella och regimkritiker sitter fängslade. Anklagelserna är ofta absurda. Straffen för lindriga förseelser mot mullornas påbud har varit hårda och brutala. Kvinnor som brutit mot påbuden straffas särskilt hårt.

Nyligen dömdes en iransk kvinna, till döden för äktenskapsbrott i oktober 2005. Straffet ska verkställas genom stening. En annan kvinna dömdes också till döden för mord av en domstol i Teheran i januari 2006. Hon erkände att hon knivdödat en av tre män som försökte våldta henne och hennes nära släkting i en park i mars 2005.

Mot bakgrund av detta vill jag ställa följande fråga till utrikesministern:
Vilka åtgärder tänker utrikesministern vidta för att stoppa dödsstraffen för de båda kvinnorna?

fredag, september 01, 2006

OBS! Satir!

Vänsterpartiet har bytt logga:

Läs mer om varför här, här och här.