An Analysis of the U.N. speech of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

An Analysis of the U.N. speech of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Part One

By Peter Fredson

September 26, 2006

It was difficult to find the text of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Address to the United Nations on September 19th, 2006.

Most of the sycophant media of the U.S. did not see fit to print it, but limited any mention to ridiculing or trivializing it. The New York Times printed all of the Bush rhetoric but somehow could not find room for that of Ahadinejad. I found it on the Bellacio site,

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=13614

and decided to analyze it to see if it was in any way factual, or, as some “objective” reporter suggested, loonytoon ranting.

I will put Amadinejad’s words in quotes, followed by a brief comment concerning “truthiness” of the allegations.

“Madam 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 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 a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing”

Does anyone find fault with the preceding sentiments? Are the values and goals expressed in any way immoral, obscene, or rude? I’m not speaking of his practice but of his aspirations voiced in his speech. Undoubtedly critics will find a wealth of practices in Iran today with which they disagree and will probably write books about it.

“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.”

Does anyone argue that war and oppression is healthy for humanity or that the Neocons did not have a strategy for world domination?

“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.”

Are the preceding allegations untrue? Do we not see these in action every day in this world? Do we not occupy Iraq and will do so as long as it has oil, bases and will give Bush the pretext of being at War?

“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?

Are those questions made idly, without foundation? Where can a small nation, under duress, or occupation, to go seek redress?

“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 their 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.”
Are the three preceding paragraphs rabble-rousing rhetoric or do they contain a great deal of merit in raising legitimate questions? Have not bloggers incessantly brought up the same questions?
“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 exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?”

Is this not true? Has nuclear possession and consequent threats of its use not created hatred and tension among nations instead of being a force for good. Does not the prospect of Bush having the key to the nuclear arsenal fill you with dread?

“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 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.”

Does anyone except a Bush sycophant believe that his invasion of Iraq was not based on lies, jingoistic rhetoric and illegitimate demonizing of a nation that was NOT about to attack the U.S.?

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?”

, where can people seek refuge from aggression, oppression and naked force? Is the U.S. still the policeman of the world, or the terrorist?

“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 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?”

Is not the Palestinian issue one of the great problems causing world tension? The Bush “road map” has led nowhere. The entire Middle East is a powder-keg. As I look at the assertions of the Iranian President, he speaks sense. I do not debate his practices here. What I see is the attempt of the Bushites to ignore all complaints, brush aside all grievances, and arrogantly proceed without discussion. If ignorance is bliss, then George W. is indeed in a blissful paradise of his Cloud Cuckooland imagination. Can we exist without speaking to each other. Must we use bombs as an answer to all problems?

END OF PART ONE