[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: How can anybody be Persian? How can anybody be Persian? By Manouchehr Mottaki In his masterpiece, Persian Letters, published in 1721, the great French philosopher Charles-Louis de Montesquieu ponders the surprising behaviors of the French: his Iranian traveler Rica, arriving in Paris, decides to dress like the French and learns with astonishment that his French friends no longer treat him with admiration that they previously had for him. This dualism in the behavior of French society of the 18th century leads the traveler to wonder how it is possible to be Iranian and to live in another world, namely the West. The history of the Iranian nuclear issue raises the same question. Indeed, thirty years ago, when a dictatorial regime used to reign over Iran, the French Republic’s decision to cooperate with such a regime on nuclear policy received the approval of all the politicians -- up to the highest level. In those years, the French did not ask any question about the objectives of the Shah. Quite contrary, France proposed the Iranian participation in Framatome, then in Eurodif, even going so far as to invite the Shah to visit the French nuclear sites in Saclay, without showing any unease to cooperate in the nuclear field -- including military. Years later, when the Iranian people ended the dictatorial regime and, inspired by the highest principles of Islam, established a republic on the principles of independence and freedom (the very values of the French Revolution and the Fifth Republic), we expected the French leaders to welcome this great change positively -- and work for the promotion of democracy in the East. However, a veritable tragedy occurred when the Iranians of the new era, like Montesquieu’s character, decided to benefit from modern means of development. The mutual cooperation for development was halted, and the bilateral relations darkened, so much so that French weapons were generously placed at the disposal of another tyrant, named Saddam Hussein, so that the dictator could target the defenseless Iranian citizens and with French arms destroy a part of the magnificent historical heritage of a country as old as Persia. A country such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its regional and international potential, has no need to give itself up to haggling in order to defend its rights and to continue its economic and social development. To work for the future of coming generations is our sacred duty, and it doesn’t accept any hesitation. Obviously, on this path, the Islamic Republic of Iran did not choose a way of confrontation. Its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, its acceptance of the initiative of the European countries in 2003, its voluntary implementation of the additional protocol, its suspension of enrichment process for two years, etc., illustrate the good faith of Iran. The question is thus what caused a certain number of our French friends -- without taking their country’s historic place in Europe into account -- to choose a tone very far from what we expect from France’s venerable diplomacy. Our documents of negotiations show that, in the summer of 2003, at the beginning of the negotiations with the Europeans, our French friends explained that they took charge of this issue in order to reinforce the weight of Europe on the international stage and to pull the British ship towards the EU continent. However, when I heard the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it enthusiastically supported the French demand for unilateral sanctions -- though Spain, Italy, Austria, and Germany in opposition announced their preference for more diplomatic efforts -- I wondered whether it wasn’t the British ship that, since 2003, had been drawing the lost EU continent towards it. Even if it is advisable to have a little patience before coming to a conclusion about the attitude of the new British government. The president of the French Republic rightly believes that insufficient development of countries leads to regional instability and heightened insecurity. This development goes through that of nuclear energy. The Islamic Republic of Iran thus does not wish its nuclear policy to become the target of a discriminatory vision on the part of France. Therefore, Iran will continue its nuclear activities and uranium enrichment for civilian purposes, respecting the safeguard agreements and under the supervision of the IAEA, and in cooperation with other countries of the world. It will do so without worrying about the possibility of a discriminatory behavior. The concerns of the Islamic Republic of Iran are by no means hypothetical. In the history of bilateral relations, there indeed exist many examples of a discriminatory approach on the part of France (in particular embargo on the sale of civil transport aircraft, medical equipment, and radars to combat drug trafficking or illegal immigration). “How can anybody be Persian?” wondered the French friend of the traveler of Persian Letters. Montesquieu drew the conclusion from it that the narrow thought of this man did not permit him to admit that there are, in the universe, other people besides the French. This article first appeared in French daily Le Monde on Oct. 24
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||