[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2241-E2246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRANIAN REGIME PROVEN TO BE MAJOR VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS
______
HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime has proven to be a
major violator of human rights, particularly those of women in Iran.
The present regime of Iran is the world's leading state-sponsor of
terrorism, has adamantly worked to subvert the peace process in the
Middle East, is vigorously pursuing an ambitious nuclear program, and
has used every opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of
other nations. This has gone on for 15 long years. There must be an end
to this misery for the people of Iran and relief for the rest of the
world.
Experience has shown that change must come from within. The Iranian
people have demonstrated that they seek a different course than their
rulers. Demonstrations, riots, and strikes in Iran within the past year
further testify to their reality. Meanwhile, the National Council of
Resistance of Iran, as the only alternative to the present regime, has
declared that it seeks a democratic, pluralistic and secular Iran.
In March, on the anniversary of International Women's Day, I stated
in this chamber that the clerics' number-one enemy is a woman: Maryam
Rajavi. She was elected by Iran's parliament-in-exile as the future
president of Iran. The unprecedented participation of women in the
resistance is the best testimony to the movement's democratic nature.
Recently, Mrs. Rajavi, whose headquarters are in Paris, paid a visit
to Norway, where she was warmly received like a head of state. She met
with leaders of all major parties, spoke at the Foreign Relations
Committee of Norway's parliament, and attended a Sunday prayer service
at Oslo's most famous church, where she was received by a high official
of the Norwegian Church. She also attended an enthusiastic gathering of
1,500 of her supporters is Oslo, and addressed dignitaries at the City
Hall. In this speech, she outlined the goals and objectives of the
Resistance she leads, and eloquently spoke of her vision for a
democratic and peace-seeking Iran of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important for our leaders and
citizens to better acquaint themselves with her views. In addition,
Norway must be lauded for its firm stance against the Iranian regime,
and its support for Maryam Rajavi. I, therefore submit a copy of the
text of Mrs. Rajavi's speech, to be printed in the Congressional
Record.
Text of the Remarks by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, The Iranian Resistance's
President-elect, Oslo, Norway, October 31, 1995
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I would first of all
like to thank Mr. Lingas, Mrs. Nybaak and all those in the
Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran for all the work
they have done to defend the rights of the Iranian people.
It is a source of great pleasure to be among the leading
thinkers, intellectuals and representatives of a nation which
for many years heroically resisted against foreign occupation
and the reign of Hitler's fascism, liberated itself and
instituted a society which is doubtless one of the most
advanced democracies in the contemporary world. It is a
society wherein women have a leading role in guiding its
affairs, in and of itself the most realistic and best
hallmark of democracy in today's world.
I am therefore confident that I am speaking to an audience
which well understands the suffering of an enchained nation
of 70 million, who for the last 16 years have been subjugated
by a brutal religious fascism that has eliminated all
vestiges of democracy and popular sovereignty. Norway's
policy of distancing herself from the conventional
conciliatory approach to the Khomeini regime, and paying heed
to human rights and the resistance in Iran, assures our
people that democracy and justice have an adamant advocate in
today's world. The formation of the Norwegian Committee in
Defense of Human Rights in Iran itself best reflects this
commitment to and respect for the principles of human rights
and justice by Norway's political, cultural, social, artistic
and literary personalities.
Allow me to use this opportunity to outline the issues
which, in my view, must be considered by the international
community. What is transpiring in my fettered country, Iran,
namely the reign of the mullahs' medieval religious
dictatorship, not only represents a national catastrophe for
all Iranians, but is also a source of a global problem and
danger threatening stability and peace the world over.
Firstly, the mullahs have extended their state-sponsored
terrorism across Asia, Africa, the United States, and Europe,
including Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Norway.
Secondly, the clerics are exporting the cultural and
political dimensions of fundamentalism, especially to Islamic
countries and various Muslim societies. This is followed by
an expansion of the fundamentalist extremist networks.
[[Page E 2242]]
Thirdly, they oppose peace and advocate turmoil everywhere,
as reflected in their regime's enmity to the Middle East
peace process.
Today, virtually everyone is aware of the crimes
perpetrated by Khomeini's anti-human regime within and
without Iran. You know that the clerics have executed 100,000
of the best youth of my country purely for political reasons,
for opposing the ruling dictatorship, and for defending
freedom and democracy. The names and particulars of 16,000 of
them have been complied in this book. The victims include
intellectuals, university students and faculty, high school
students, teenage girls, pregnant women, elderly women,
businessmen, merchants and even dissident clerics. In many
cases, several members of a single family have been executed.
Many more have been subjected to the most barbaric, medieval
tortures.
Nor is the appalling predicament of women under the
mullahs' rule a secret. Inconceivable atrocities are
committed against women on the pretext of combating improper
veiling. Everyday, thousands of women are lashed, sent to
prisons or viciously assaulted and insulted. These crimes
are unprecedented in other areas of the globe. The rulers
of Iran brazenly carry out hideous crimes under the banner
of Islam. According to Khomeini's fatwa, virgin girls are
raped by the Revolutionary Guards prior to execution to
prevent them from going to heaven. Those condemned to
death have their blood drained before execution.
The export of terrorism, fundamentalism and belligerence of
this regime, under the banner of Islam and revolution, is
another well-established fact. It is evident in the regime's
insistence on perpetuating the unpatriotic war with Iraq,
which lasted some eight years and left millions dead or
wounded and $1000 billion in economic damages on the Iranian
side alone; in its enmity to Middle East peace; in its
interference in the affairs of Islamic countries; in its
decree to murder foreign nationals; and in its more than 100
terrorist operations throughout the world. The echo of these
despicable-criminals' bullets still lingers in this city.
And it is clear to everyone that the regime has adopted
policies of setting up intelligence, propaganda and terrorist
networks in other countries; allocating astronomical funds to
procure conventional arms, and biological and chemical
weapons of mass destruction; and especially of endeavoring to
obtain nuclear weaponry--all to back up the export of
fundamentalism and to secure the survival of the religious
dictatorship.
I shall refrain from further elaborating on the regime's
crimes and conspiracies. In the time that I have, I wish to
address a pivotal issue: How to confront this regime and the
fundamentalism and terrorism it fosters. This issue is key,
because on the international level, all approaches and
policies vis-a-vis the mullahs' religious, terrorist
dictatorship have proven futile. Indeed, in many cases they
have been taken advantage of by the regime, which has been
the only party to benefit from them.
For many years, particularly following Khomeini's death,
Western countries indulged in a guest for a moderate current
within the regime. They pinned their hopes on improving the
regime's behavior through economic engagement.
Simultaneously, a number of big powers invested in a policy
of appeasement in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with
Tehran, and prevent the export of terrorism to their own
countries. Consistent with this approach, the official
European policy toward Iran today is one critical dialogue.
The experience of the past 16 years has confirmed, however,
that none of these policies has borne fruit. They have failed
to have any impact on the conduct of this international
outlaw.
A symbolic and quite fitting example is the inhuman and
anti-Islamic fatwa against Salman Rushdie. About seven years
have passed since the decree was issued. All European efforts
to change the status quo through dialogue, discussion and
economic and political incentives have proven futile.
Khomeini's successors have time and again reiterated that the
decree must be implemented. For seven years, the regime has
used the Rushdie affair as a bargaining chip in seeking more
concessions from the West. The atrocities that this regime
perpetrates against its own citizens are beyond description.
Needless to say, the moderation of such a regime is but a
mirage.
It is ironic that when even the Khomeini regime's first
prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan, acknowledged in an interview
with the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau in January that
the mullahs have the support of less than five percent of the
Muslim people of Iran, and lack both religious and social
legitimacy, the international community nevertheless allows
Tehran to promote their evil anti-Islamic, anti-human
objectives among Muslims elsewhere, turn Western countries
into hunting grounds for their opponents, and blackmail
European countries by staging terrorist operations on their
soil to promote their evil anti-Islamic, anti-human
objectives among Muslims elsewhere, turn Western countries
into hunting grounds for their opponents, and blackmail
European countries by staging terrorist operations on their
soil. Indeed, the extensive economic and political support
provided by a number of countries, coupled with the kowtowing
by certain circles to the terrorist mullahs' political
blackmail, have been instrumental in prolonging this regime
and delaying the establishment of democracy in Iran by the
Iranian people and Resistance.
misperceptions about mullahs, source of appeasement
In my view, beyond economic interests or fear of
terrorism--which in many cases justify and give impetus to
them--these misguided policies and drastic miscalculations
stem from the lack of a correct, objective understanding of
the nature of the Khomeini regime, and of the roots and
extent of its fundamentalist, backward outlook. For precisely
this reason, these countries lose sight of the regional and
international implications of their approach. This
misperception of the regime's durability is compounded by a
comparable deficiency in objective appraisals or knowledge of
the legitimate, democratic alternative to this regime, which
is capable of bringing democracy to Iran.
Although there are fundamental differences between the
Khomeini regime and Hitler's fascism, in terms of their
political, economic and military capabilities, a parallel may
nonetheless be drawn with the conciliatory treatment of
Germany by some European countries in the years preceding the
Second World War. This policy of acquiescence, embodied in
the Munich agreement of 1938 or the relations between the
Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany until even the first or the
second year of the war, stemmed from the notion that certain
concessions at the expense of other countries, who were
abandoned in their Resistance against fascism, would stop
German expansionism. Hitler benefited greatly from the
policy, which enabled him to advance his goals.
Today, due to the experience of the past 16 years, a more
profound understanding of the clerical regime's nature has
emerged and, in a few cases, a more realistic policy has been
adopted. Here, allow me, on behalf of a Resistance movement
which for 16 years has waged an all-out cultural, ideological
and political struggle against this regime, to briefly share
with you our knowledge and awareness of this regime. This
understanding and our consequent principled policies have
enabled us to resist against the most ruthless dictator of
contemporary history and prevent him from casting us aside.
In fact, we have experienced continuous expansion and growth.
Misperceptions of the regime have not only led to mistaken
policies by the international community. For the same reason,
many Iranian political parties and groups regrettably failed
to stand up to this religious, terrorist dictatorship,
surrendered to it, or were eliminated altogether from the
Iranian political landscape.
the notion of the velayat-e faqih
In reality, the outlook and conduct of Khomeini and his
regime neither belong to our age, nor compare to most
dictatorships that have emerged in the twentieth century.
This regime represents the most retrogressive form of
medieval, sectarian dictatorship. Having failed to alleviate
any of Iranian society's problems or needs, it is attempting
to impose itself under the guise of Islam on the people of
the world, especially Muslims.
The mullah's religious dictatorship is based on the
philosophy of Velayat-e Faqih, presented in its present form
for the first time by Khomeini. He explains his views in his
book, ``Islamic Rule or Velayat-e Faqih,'' written in the
1960s. His theory is based on the one hand upon imposing
absolute authority over the populace, and on the other upon
extending this authority to all Muslims, i.e. ``exporting
revolution.''
In his book Khomeini states: ``The Velayat-e Faqih is like
appointing a guardian for a minor. In terms of responsibility
and status, the guardian of a nation is no different from the
guardian of a minor.'' These are Khomeini's exact words.
During his reign, he repeated several times that if the
entire population advocated something to which he was
opposed, he would nevertheless do as he saw fit.
He went as far as to write: ``If a competent person arises
and forms a government, his authority to administer the
society's affairs is the same as that of Prophet Muhammad.
Everyone (meaning Muslims everywhere) must obey him. The idea
that the Prophet had more authority as a ruler than His
Holiness Imam Ali [the first Shi'ite Imam], or that the
latter's authority exceeded that of the Vali is incorrect.''
With these words, Khomeini granted himself the same
authority as the Prophet of God, but he did not stop there.
Twenty some years later, in 1988, he wrote an open letter,
published in the regime's dailies, lashing out at some views
suggesting that ``government authority is contained within
the bounds of divine edicts.'' Khomeini wrote: ``. . . The
Velayat takes precedence over all secondary commandments,
even prayer, fasting, and the hajj . . . The government is
empowered to unilaterally abrogate the religious commitments
it has undertaken with the people . . . The statements made,
or being made, derive from a lack of knowledge of divinely
ordained absolute rule . . .''
In this way, Khomeini propagated the notion of the Velayat-
e Motlaqeh Faqih (absolute rule of the jurist), something
which his heirs and theoreticians within the regime went to
extremes to stress. Mullah Ahmad Azari-Qomi, one of the most
authoritative theoreticians of the Velayat-e Faqih notion,
wrote: ``The Velayat-e Faqih means absolute religious and
legal guardianship of the people by the Faqih. This
guardianship applies to the entire world and all that exist
in it,
[[Page E 2243]]
whether earthbound or flying creatures, inanimate objects, plants,
animals, and anything in any way related to collective or
individual human life, all human affairs, belongings, or
assets . . .''
This world view, as practiced by Khomeini and his regime,
culminates in absolute ruthlessness and oppression when
dealing with the issue of women. Azari-Qomi writes about the
marriage of virgin girls thus: ``Islam prohibits the marriage
of a virgin girl without the permission of her father and her
own consent. Both of them must agree. But the Vali-e Faqih is
authorized to overrule the father or the girl.'' In other
words, the Vali-e Faqih can forcibly marry a girl without her
own or her father's consent. In this way, this regime not
only applies maximum political suppression on the citizenry,
but interferes in the most personal affairs of their lives,
from compulsory veiling to varied forms of discrimination
against women, to banning smiles and stoning women to death.
Misogyny is the most fundamental feature of the Velayat-e
Faqih, and the structure of the clerical regime's system
rests upon de-humanizing women. As far as women in the work
force are concerned, their opportunities are less than 10% of
those of their male counterparts. This ratio decreases as the
quality of the job or its political nature increases. No
women manage the affairs of the society, particularly its
political leadership. The regime's constitution absolutely
and unequivocally bans women from judgeships, the presidency
and leadership.
All evaluations and laws within this regime are based on
the precept that women are weak and the property of men, for
which reason they have no place in leading or managing the
society. A woman must stay at home, rear children and cook,
the tasks for which she has been created.
The official, legal deprivations and restrictions, and even
statistics represent only a small part of the gender
apartheid. Its more significant aspect is in the spirit of
the anti-human relationships emanating from this regime, to
the extent that one woman wrote in a state-controlled daily
that it makes women regret that they were created as women in
the first place. Indeed, it is these relationships which
force women, especially young women, to set themselves on
fire in utter despair under the mullahs' reign.
The mullahs' misogyny has given rise to horrifying crimes.
The wholesale execution of thousands of women, even pregnant
women, is unique to this regime. The flogging and torturing
of women in public, execution methods such as firing bullets
into their wombs, the ``residential quarters'' in prisons
designed to totally destroy these defenseless women, and the
multitudes of tortures and atrocities invented by the
mullahs, demonstrate the unparalleled savagery of their
enmity toward women. Why does the regime so barbarously and
relentlessly suppress women? What explains the clerics'
misogyny?
The foundations erected by Khomeini's religious despotism
and the installation of the regime's suppressive institutions
and forces have been fortified by promoting and reinforcing
gender-based distinctions and discrimination. In the name of
religion and such pretexts as improper veiling, the clerics
suppress women, eliminating them from the social scene.
This enmity toward women is not, however, merely a by-
product of the mullahs' reactionary beliefs. If the clerics
show the slightest laxity in their misogyny and gender-
apartheid, allowing women to enter the social arena free of
the reactionary restrictions unique to this regime, the
mullahs' suppressive organs and institutions throughout
society would lose their raison d'etre. The clerical regime,
a religious dictatorship, would subsequently lose its
vitality, because the dynamism and conduct of the repressive
forces in defending the theocracy is, before anything else,
rooted in safeguarding gender-distinctions under the pretext
of defending ``Islamic rule.''
As far as the regime's foreign policy and the export of
terrorism are concerned, both Khomeini and his successors
pursue specific goals, unequivocally defined. Following
Khomeini's death, Rafsanjani stressed: ``Islamic Iran is the
base for all Muslims the world over,'' adding that Khomeini
``truly and deeply hated the idea that we be limited by
nationalism, by race, or by our own territory.'' Elsewhere he
says: ``Iran is the base of the new movements of the world of
Islam . . . The eyes of Muslims worldwide are focused here .
. .''
The book Principles of Foreign Policy of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, published by the Iranian regime's foreign
ministry, states: ``Islam recognizes only one boundary,
purely ideological in nature. Other boundaries, including
geographic borders, are rejected and condemned.''
After Khomeini's death, his son Ahmad said: ``Islam
recognizes no borders . . . The objective of the Islamic
Republic and its officials is none other than to establish a
global Islamic rule . . .''
The mullahs ruling Iran dream of a global Islamic
caliphate, much like the Ottoman Empire. They say the Islamic
revolution will suffocate within Iran's borders and cannot be
preserved without the export of revolution. Mohammad Khatami,
Rafsanjani's former Minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance,
who is also known as a moderate within the regime, writes:
``Where do we look when drawing up our strategy? Do we look
to bast (expansion) or to hefz (preservation)?'' Particularly
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the mullahs refer to
the split between Trotsky and Stalin in the 1930's, noting
that developments in the Soviet Union proved the validity of
Trotsky's theory of a ``permanent revolution,'' and that the
only way to preserve the Islamic regime is to foment Islamic
revolutions in other countries. The slogan of ``liberating
Qods (Jerusalem) via Karbala,'' with which Khomeini continued
the Iran-Iraq war for eight years, reflected the strategy of
``bast.''
Ali-Muhammad Besharati, the current Interior Minister and
former Deputy Foreign Minister, stresses that ``the third
millennium belongs to Islam and the rule of Muslims over the
world.'' By Muslims, of course, he means none other than the
mullahs. Mohammad-Javad Larijani, a key foreign policy
advisor to Rafsanjani, said: ``The true Velayat-e Faqih is
in Iran. This Velayat is responsible for all of the Muslim
world. . . One of its objectives is expansion. . .''
Larijani is one of the regime's roving ambassadors who
engages in a great deal of posturing for the Europeans.
Rafsanjani recently sent him to Europe for some deceitful
maneuvers concerning the Rushdie case. Khamenei's latest
emphasis that the Jews must be expelled from Israel and
Israel annihilated are also an extension of this policy.
I must emphasize here that the mullahs' outlook and
theories about government and Velayat-e Faqih cannot be
viewed as an interpretation of Islam. They are the first to
offer such a criminal reading of Islam. This is unprecedented
in Islamic history. Even many traditional clerics, more
senior than or on par with Khomeini in Qom and Najaf
seminaries, were strongly opposed to the Velayat-e Faqih
perspective. In reality, the mullahs interpret Islam solely
in terms of the needs and interests of their dictatorship.
The fact is that Khomeini and his clique lack any
historical or political ability to govern a big nation with
several thousand years of history and a rich culture. To stay
in power, they see themselves as increasingly compelled to
employ repression and religious tyranny insider the country,
and export terrorism and fundamentalism, in an effort to
expand the geographic sphere of their influence. For this
reason, after Khomeini's death, contrary to all expectations
that his heirs would pursue a ``moderate'' path, they were
forced to fill the void of Khomeini's charisma, the unifying
element which gave the regime religious legitimacy, with
greater suppression and export of fundamentalism. The
Rafsanjani regime's record of terrorist activities abroad and
interference in Islamic countries and the affairs of Muslims
elsewhere is far worse than when Khomeini was alive.
how did khomeini become a national & global threat
Allow me to also refer to how the regime is taking
advantage of Iran's cultural, political, human and geo-
strategic potential in pursuing its evil objectives:
For 14 centuries, since the advent of Islam, Iran and
Iranians have always played a key role in shaping and
advancing the policies and cultural identity of the Islamic
world. Iranians wrote most books on Shi'ite and Sunni Figh
and Hadith, on Arabic grammar and on interpreting the Quran.
In philosophy, logic, mathematics, medicine, astronomy,
chemistry and other sciences of the era, Iranian scientists
led the Islamic world. The books of Avecina, the renowned
11th century philosopher and physicians, were translated into
many languages and taught in Western universities until
recently.
With an eye to Iran's vast land mass, geo-political
position, population and many other factors, the country
enjoys an exceptional position in the Islamic world. In the
last 14 centuries, it has had a tremendous impact on Islamic
countries. The mullahs have made maximum use of this
potential to export their fundamentalism and advance their
objectives. In other words, if a regime much like Khomeini's
has assumed power in any other Islamic country, it would not
have enjoyed such stature. It is not without reason that
Larijani says Iran is the only country capable of leading the
Islamic world. This explains why the clerical regime in
Tehran serves as the heart of fundamentalism throughout the
world, just as Moscow did for communism.
Many fundamentalist currents existed in Iran or elsewhere
before Khomeini's ascension to power, but they were nothing
more than isolated religious sects. With the establishment of
an Islamic reign in Tehran, they were transformed into
political and social movements, and into serious threats to
peace, democracy and traquillity.
In fact, the Khomeini regime uses propaganda, political,
financial, military and ideological assistance, and beyond
all these, its status as a role model and as a regional and
international source of support, to direct Muslims' religious
sentiments toward extremist and undemocratic trends. The
mullahs exploit Islam's spirit of liberation and its call for
justice and freedom, to further their medieval rule. Instead,
consistent with the experience of the Resistance, the
sentiments of Muslims and Islam's freedom-seeking spirit
could have been and can translate into a modern and
democratic movement which, while respectful of Islam, aspires
to a secularist, pluralist form of government.
what's to be done?
So far, I have referred to the internal and international
conduct of the Khomeini regime. Now, I wish to address the
solution.
[[Page E 2244]]
On the basis of our 16-years of experience in the struggle
for democracy, the only solution is to offer a political and
cultural alternative to the Khomeini regime. I say political
because this alternative must overthrow the regime and
replace it with a democratic, secular government. The head of
the viper is in Tehran and unless crushed there, there is no
hope of uprooting fundamentalism.
I say cultural because this alternative must present a
democratic Islam, with a peaceful, tolerant culture
compatible with science and civilization, to confront the
mullahs' Velayat-e Faqih theory. Only thus can it prevent the
mullahs from imposing themselves as the representatives of
Islam in the minds of the people of Muslim countries.
Even before Khomeini's rule, we understood the danger of
the Velayat-e Faqih, because we knew the mullahs and Khomeini
intimately. While in prison in the final months before the
shah's fall, the Mojahedin leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi,
repeatedly pointed to backward religious currents as the main
threat to the democratic anti-shah movement and warned
against the dangers of religious fascism. In 1979, Khomeini
succeeded in usurping the leadership of the Iranian people's
antidictatorial revolution, relying on marja'iat (religious
leadership) for religious legitimacy, deceit and the people's
lack of experience and awareness. The shah's widespread clamp
down on organizations fighting for freedom, including the
arrest and execution of their leaders, assisted Khomeini
along the way. Relying on the overwhelming support of the
people, who longed for freedom and independence, he became a
dangerous force which destroyed everything in his path.
From the onset, the Mojahedin, as a democratic Muslim
force, saw it incumbent upon themselves to expose Khomeini's
demagoguery and false portrayal of Islam. They thus
represented a cultural, ideological and political challenge
to the ruling mullahs, and embarked upon a relentless
campaign to explain the facts to the people. For the first
time, there was a cultural alternative to the Khomeini
regime.
What we knew of Islam, the Quran and the life of the
Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) was totally contrary to
the behavior of the new rulers. Like all great religions,
Islam is the religion of compassion, tolerance, emancipation
and equality. The Holy Quran often states that there is no
compulsion in religion. In so far as political and social
life are concerned, it stresses consultation, democracy and
respect for other people's views. Islam seeks social
progress, and economic, social and political evolution.
Fourteen centuries ago, when people in the Arabian
peninsula were burying their girl children alive, Islam
accorded women equal political, social and economic
identities and independence. The Prophet of Islam profoundly
respected women. The first Muslim was a woman, and four out
of the ten original Muslims were women.
After two and half years, the Resistance's endeavors paid
off. Cracks appeared in Khomeini's religious legitimacy, and
his use of the weapon of Islam began to lose its effect. No
longer did the people view Khomeini and the ruling mullahs as
infallible. To prolong his rule inside the country, Khomeini
had resorted to a blatant crackdown. Everyone knew that the
Mojahedin, the largest opposition force seeking freedom, were
Muslim themselves and that Khomeini's quarrel with them was
not over Islam, but over preserving his dictatorial rule. Our
message defended political freedoms and the people's
individual and social rights, and opposed dictatorship and
the regime's misuse of Islam.
Mr. Rajavi lectured on Islamic teachings in one of Tehran's
largest universities in 1980. 10,000 university students and
intellectuals took part every week, and tapes and transcripts
were distributed in the hundreds of thousands. The discourses
exposed Khomeini's reactionary views promulgated under the
banner of Islam, discrediting him among the religious youth.
In a ruthless onslaught to curb the extensive influence of
the Mojahedin in all universities, in spring 1980 Khomeini
closed down all universities for the years to come on the
pretext of a cultural revolution. For our part, we have
continued our efforts in this respect as one of our
primary tasks.
Another of the fundamental aspects of this cultural
struggle has been to target the heart of the clerics'
Velayet-e Faqih culture, namely the issue of women and
mullahs' ultra-reactionary, misogynous treatment of them. In
this regard, we did not stop at simply exposing the clerics.
In other words, our women, in diametric opposition to
Khomeini's culture, advanced through unprecedented effort and
activities and assumed heavy responsibilities at the highest
levels of the Resistance.
With its unique perspective on this issue, the Iranian
Resistance succeeded in incorporating women in the front
lines of the movement and in the highest levels of military
command, as acknowledged by most observers. In the political
arena as well, we are witnessing the ascension of women to
important political positions. At the organizational and
management levels, the highest positions are occupied by
woman who have shown that when given the opportunity, they
can excel in assuming responsibility. Today, 52% of members
of the Resistance's parliament are women. Women fill the
majority of positions within the National Liberation Army's
high command. The leadership of the Mojahedin consists of a
24-member, all women council. The women of the Resistance
have thus proven that, just like men, before all else it is
their human qualities and consequent social and political
abilities which count. They have righteously overcome all
obstacles in performing their duties.
Hence, a glance at the regime and the Resistance quickly
reveals two distinctly opposite cultures. Diametrically
opposed to the Khomeini regime, whose very existence depends
on their suppression and elimination of women, the victory
and advancement of the Resistance would have been impossible
without woman and their role in the leadership and command.
The first to attest to this fact are the male activists,
combatants, and commanders, who are best aware of the
glorious path that has been traversed.
It is also significant that the Resistance's elimination of
the most persistent and profound form of discrimination
against the most oppressed sector of society, namely women,
and its fostering of relationships among people which allow
women to attain their legal and social rights, is the best
guarantee for democracy and pluralism in the future Iran.
a democratic alternative
Obviously, we did not stop at introducing a cultural
alternative, we also gradually established a political
alternative. In 1980, during the first presidential
elections, Massoud Rajavi was a candidate for president. All
religious and ethnic minorities, the youth, women, and
opposition groups and parties supported Mr. Rajavi's
candidacy. Sensing the danger, Khomeini issued a fatwa a few
days before the election, banning him as a candidate because
he had not voted for the Velayat-e Faqih constitution.
Several months later, during the elections for parliament,
the Mojahedin and other democratic forces announced a joint
slate. This time, despite the many votes cast for them. the
regime prevented even one of the Mojahedin candidates from
taking office through widespread rigging. In each of the
election rallies of the Mojahedin in Tehran and other cites,
hundreds of thousands took part.
In the first two and a half years of Khomeini's rule, the
Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) killed 50 supporters and
members of the Mojahedin in the streets. They arrested
several thousand, subjecting them to brutal torture. The
regime also dispatched gangs of club-wielders into the
streets to clamp down on dissidents. In contrast, the
Mojahedin did not fire a single bullet, relinquishing their
legitimate right to self-defense to prevent more violence and
bloodshed. The Mojahedin's goal was to resolve the political
problems through peaceful means.
On June 20, 1981, in protest to the repression, the
Mojahedin organized a peaceful demonstration. In a short span
of time, some 50,000 Tehran residents joined the march.
Khomeini issued a fatwa to suppress the demonstration. Guards
opened fire indiscriminately, and hundreds were killed or
wounded. Thousands were arrested and executed the same night
in groups of several hundred.
Khomeini and other officials of his regime had realized
early on, even before the overthrow of the shah, that the
Mojahedin could stand against both a religious and political
dictatorship, due to their freedom-seeking and tolerant
interpretation of Islam and their popularity and social base.
In other words, the Mojahedin were the antithesis to the
clerics. In summer 1980, several days after Mr. Rajavi spoke
to 200,000 Tehran residents in Amjadieh sports stadium,
condemning the slaughter of the Mojahedin and dissidents in
other cities, Khomeini reacted by saying that the enemy was
``neither in the Soviet Union, nor in the United States, nor
in Iranian Kurdistan, but right here--in Tehran.''
In reality, the religious dictatorship was trying to
portray democracy and popular sovereignty as contrary to
Islam. In consequence, it could suppress any democratic
initiative on the charge of being anti-Islamic. The mullahs
relied in this tactic on the people's unawareness. Khomeini
was, however, well aware that the Mojahedin would thwart his
pretenses about Islam and religious legitimacy. Thus, he
spared no effort against the Iranian Resistance, because he
knew that if could eliminate us, he could overcome his other
problems and stabilize his rule. Among the crimes the
Khomeini regime perpetrated to destroy its main enemy, I can
mention his order for the mass execution of all members and
supporters of this Resistance, purely for being affiliated
with the movement, his declaration that their lives and
properties are fair game, and the assassinations of the
Resistance's activists abroad.
In this way, Khomeini, who in 1979 was welcomed as a
religious and political leader by millions in Tehran,
continued after June 20, detested, only through the force of
the bayonet, torture and execution. The people, meanwhile,
were chanting death to Khomeini. As such, the only avenues
which remained for the freedom-seeking and patriotic people
and forces was to rid themselves of the mullahs to establish
democracy.
In order for the Resistance for freedom to achieve
maturity, a political alternative--a vast coalition of
opposite groups--was needed. Although the basis for such a
coalition had taken shape in the first presidential elections
and the parliamentary elections,
[[Page E 2245]]
after the start of the extensive, all-embracing suppression, this
coalition had to be formalized and transformed into a
political alternative. Thus, on July 21, 1981, the National
Council of Resistance was formed with the objective of
establishing democracy in Iran.
After 14 years, the Council, the longest lasting
democratic, political coalition in Iran's contemporary era,
has 560 members. A significant number of other committed
personalities, whose membership has recently been approved,
will soon join it. The Council encompasses the democratic
opposition, the representatives of ethnic and religious
minorities, nationalist figures, and Muslim, secular and
socialist leaders. It acts as the Resistance's Parliament.
The Council's 25 committees will serve as the basis for the
future coalition government following the mullahs' overthrow.
In office for a maximum of six months, the Provisional
Government's primary task is to hold free elections for a
Legislative and Constituent Assembly. According to the
Council's ratified decisions, in tomorrow's Iran, elections
and the general vote will constitute the basis for the
legitimacy of the country's future government. Freedom of
belief, press, parties and political assemblies is
guaranteed, as are the judicial security of all citizens and
the rights stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
All privileges based on gender, greed, and beliefs will be
abolished and any discrimination against the followers of
different religions and denominations will be banned. No one
will be granted any privilege, or discriminated against, on
the basis of belief or non-belief in a particular religion or
denomination.
In tomorrow's Iran, the national bazaar and capitalism,
personal and private ownership and investment toward the
advancement of the national economy will be guaranteed. As
for foreign policy, Iran will advocate peace, peaceful
coexistence, and regional and international cooperation.
According to the Council's ratified plans, in tomorrow's
Iran, women will enjoy equal social, political, cultural and
economic rights with men. They will have the right to elect
and be elected in all elections, and the right to freely
choose their occupation, education, political activity,
travel, and spouse, Equal rights to divorce and freedom of
choice in apparel will be guaranteed for them.
the regime's current state
In this way, 16 years after the mullahs' rule, the
overwhelming majority of people, from women to workers, to
employees to university faculty, intellectuals and even the
bazaar merchants and clergy, who were hitherto considered the
traditional basis of the regime, are deeply disaffected.
Unemployment grips 50% of the labor force. With an inflation
rate of over 100%, some 80% of the people live below the
poverty line. Corruption and astronomical embezzlement by the
regime's officials, some of which has been exposed, have
eliminated any credibility the regime might have had.
In a word, the abysmal economic, social and ethical record
of the regime and 16 yeas of resistance by a democratic
alternative against it, have left no legitimacy or popular
base for this regime. In the eyes of the Iranian people, the
regime and its leaders are a bunch of criminals, thieves and
corrupt individuals. Khomeini's death and the death of the
last remaining grand ayatollahs; the lack of the minimum
qualifications in Khamenei as the regime's religious leader;
and the absence of an acceptable Marja-e Taqlid (source of
emulation) who would support the regime have either
eliminated or seriously undermined the last vestiges of the
regime's religious legitimacy among the most retrogressive
sectors of the society and the most traditional forces
supporting it.
Today, religious fundamentalism does not exist as a social
issue or problem in Iran. We are, rather, facing a form of
fascism under the guise of religion which holds the reins of
power. It is not without reason that today only 30% of the
regime's Revolutionary Guards, its main suppressive arm, are
volunteers, whereas at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988
and Khomeini's death in 1989, more than 70% were volunteers
ideologically loyal to the regime. Even those remaining are
receiving greater material incentives, and continue
essentially because it is a well-paying job. In short, they
have been transformed from a volunteer army to a suppressive
mercenary force which fights against the people for its own
survival.
On the international scene, however, the situation is very
different. Although word of the regime's difficulties and
internal crises and crimes against the people has inevitably
reached the outside world, the policies of other countries
toward the regime have not allowed the Iranian people's all-
out Resistance and more importantly, that Resistance's
cultural and ideological challenge to the mullahs to extend
beyond Iran's borders.
For this reason, the regime has done its utmost to tarnish
the image of the Resistance at the international level and
forestall its advances, through dirty deals and agreements.
This is one of the primary issues of discussion between the
regime and its foreign interlocutors. The regime pursues its
policies and prevarication against the Resistance in
international arenas and foreign countries through its own
operatives or through persons who have acquiesced but pose as
oppositionists
The regime's extreme sensitivity and hysteric reactions to
the international successes and political relations of the
Resistance with other countries, governments and parliaments
confirm that this is its Achilles heel. This also explains
the repeated appeals by the regime's leaders and diplomats to
other governments to prevent the presence of the members and
sympathizers of the Resistance. By the same token, the
economic relationships between Western countries and Tehran's
rulers, and the resultant petro-dollars are used only for
domestic suppression, weapons purchases and the quest to
obtain nuclear arms and export terrorism and fundamentalism.
A significant portion of the revenue has also been diverted
into the mullahs' foreign bank accounts. For their part, the
Iranian people have received nothing but suppression and
greater destitution.
The extensive economic ties with this regime have not only
failed to contain fundamentalism, but have also emboldened
the regime to continue these policies. Experience has also
shown that the clerics use these connections as a cover to
undertake more terrorist and fundamentalist activities
abroad.
In a word, the 16-year experience of the Iranian Resistance
in dealing with the fundamentalist rulers of Iran and the
experiences of international politics regarding Iran under
the banner of the mullahs demonstrate that:
Any policy based on appeasing this regime is doomed to
failure. Laws governing a religious dictatorship are
different from the experiences and laws applying to the world
community as we approach the end of the 20th century. This
regime's laws emanate from the Middle Ages. Decisiveness is
the only language with which one can and must communicate
with this regime.
Any notion that would equate the conduct of the Khomeini
regime with Islam is a strategic and dangerous mistake from
which only the mullahs benefit. By publicizing, supporting or
recognizing the democratic alternative, which has the
greatest respect for Islam as the religion of the majority of
the Iranian people, and which at its core encompasses a
Muslim democratic movement, is the only way to deny the
mullahs the means of characterizing and exploiting
opposition, hostility and decisiveness on the international
level toward them as enmity to Islam.
In this way, the world community and Western countries will
not be compelled to surrender to the blackmail of Khomeini's
anti-human regime under the banner of Islam, to accept its
double-talk on the cultural and religious distinctions of
Iran and Islamic countries, or to tarnish the universal
principles of human rights by giving concessions to this
anti-human regime. Regrettably, the regime has recently
received such concessions in a number of cases.
Furthermore, the people of different countries, especially
Muslims, will to a great extent obtain the objective
understanding of the Khomeini regime that the people of Iran
have arrived at, and few will be beguiled by the regime's
Islamic posturing and demagogic slogans.
In other words, exercising decisiveness against the regime
and support for the Iranian Resistance constitute two fronts
against fundamentalism. On the one hand, by standing firm
against the regime and supporting the Resistance, the pace of
change by the people inside Iran toward democracy and peace
will be expedited. Thus, the material and spiritual source of
support for fundamentalism will be eliminated and its heart
will stop beating. On the other hand, by exposing the anti-
Islamic nature of the mullahs in Western and Islamic
countries and introducing the democratic alternative to this
regime, the fertile grounds for the growth of fundamentalism
will dry up. We have gained this experience with 100,000
martyrs.
Norway has more than once demonstrated that on the
international level, it does not take yield to routine
political and economic considerations in defending democracy
and human rights. The courageous actions by your country to
assist liberation movements and its pioneering role in
resolving international issues, have given Norway a special
stature among the people of different countries. In the same
way, your firm stance vis-a-vis the religious, terrorist
dictatorship ruling Iran has aroused enormous friendship and
respect among the people of Iran.
On behalf of the Iranian people and their just Resistance
for peace and freedom, I see it incumbent upon myself to call
on the government and the people of Norway to impose
comprehensive sanctions on, and sever diplomatic relations
with, the mullahs and put the issue of Iran and the
Resistance on the agenda of their foreign policy, and to
convince especially the European countries to adopt a
decisive policy and recognize the right of the Iranian people
to resist against this anti-human regime.
And here, I want to address Norwegian women in general and
those supremely qualified women in particular who have held
positions of enormous political and social responsibility in
your country for many years. I call upon you to rush to the
aide of your sisters in Iran, who have ably resisted against
the misogynous clerical regime and for their part have
demonstrated that a woman is equally a human being. Of
course, in this path, they have made great sacrifices and
endured intolerable prisons and torture.
I also call upon the Norwegian youth, whose decisive role
in the political life of Norway I have witnessed during my
stay in
[[Page E 2246]]
your country, to come to the aid of the Iranian youth who are suffering
from the most extreme pressures.
The Iranian people are determined to bring democracy and
peace to their homeland. Doubtless, a democratic Iran is
indispensable to the return of tranquility and lasting peace
to the entire Middle East region and the uprooting of
terrorism throughout the globe.
I again thank our dear friends, particularly the members of
the Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran. I hope to
soon be your host in the democratic Iran of tomorrow.
____________________