Tuesday, May 04, 2010

An excellent speech by Ahmadinejad

We have the prepared text of the speech. The first thing that strikes me is that it is very religious, also very idealistic. It serves to remind its audience that Iran has a fundamentalist religious government. Possibly the most religiously influenced government in the world today. Westerners who are familiar with Christian fundamentalists should have no trouble understanding the Iranian view of the world. It is more religious than uniquely Muslim.
Regrettably, due to distancing of some States from the teachings of the Divine Prophets, the shadow of the threat of nuclear bombs is cast over the whole world, and no one feels secured. Some States define in their strategies the nuclear bomb as an element of stability and security, and this is one of their big mistakes.

The production and possession of a nuclear bomb, under whatever pretext be done, is a very dangerous act which first and foremost makes the country of production and stockpiling exposed. You may recall that how perilous was the unintentional transfer of a nuclear-tipped missile with a bomber from a military base to another one in the United States and which became a matter of concern for the American people. Secondly, the sole function of the nuclear weapons is to annihilate all living beings and destroy the environment, and its radiations would affect the coming generations and its negative impacts would continue for centuries.

The nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity rather than a weapon for defense.

The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride; it is rather disgusting and shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons, which is not even comparable to any crime committed throughout the history.
Ahmadinejad also makes the interesting contention that the use of atomic weapons against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a signal evil act in human history. It is an contention that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Ahmadinejad's more important contention, that the UN is fundamentally flawed in its bias toward compliance with the interests of the United States and four other major victors in World War II not only cannot be dismissed out of hand, but is difficult to even dispute. The best counter-argument is probably that there is no easy way to reform the UN, especially since the US can veto reforms themselves.

Fundamental reform of the UN will eventually be an important step in improving international relations but that is difficult to even envision today. Iran is beginning to argue for that.
Dear friends,

It is now clear that the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and policies practiced by some nuclear weapon States, along with the weakness of and the imbalance in the NPT provisions have been the main causes of insecurity and served as an incentive for the development of such weapons.

Today, nuclear disarmament, elimination of nuclear threat and non-proliferation are regarded as the greatest service to establishing sustainable peace and security and amity.

The question is, however, whether granting extraordinary authority in the IAEA to the nuclear weapon States and entrusting them with the critical issue of nuclear disarmament is appropriate? It would be naïve and irrational to expect an effective voluntary initiative towards disarmament and non-proliferation, simply because they consider nuclear weapons an element of superiority.

As an Iranian saying reads: “A knife never cuts its own handle”

Expecting the major arms dealers to work for the establishment of security is an illogical expectation.
Ahmadinejad details several proposals for moving toward a world where disarmament is accomplished without bias, with binding commitments not only on the non-weapons states. Then ends on a note of religious idealism that I found unexpected.
Dear friends,

Through cooperation and solidarity and harmony, our aspiration for establishing a world blessed with justice and peace is achievable, and the motto of "nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none" is the basis for interaction among human beings as well as between human and nature.

Let’s hope for a day on which through realization of justice, no one will be infuriated, and even if so happened, let’s hope again no weapon would be found to satisfy it.

Greeting to justice and liberty,

Greeting to love and affection,

Greeting to followers of the school of compassionate, and human who loves human,

I wish you all, success and prosperity.


masoud said...

I thought his speech was rather week and lackluster, but then again i think most of his international speeches are. He's a natural street fighter, not a philosopher, the long winded pretentious air he adopts when addressing diplomatic audience does not suit him, though it is a painfully common among Iranians, and may even be expected of him. I also think his dripping religiosity on balance does him more harm than good, but then again he does seem to have most of the 'muslim street' in his corner. Equally annoying is the unending 'Iran is soooo great'isms that permeate the speeches of all Iranian officials when addressing world audiences. It all just ends up looking desperate.

In my view Hillary outdid him at the UN. She did a much better job at setting the tone, and her positions and proposed concessions were very well calculated to take the wind out of Iran's sails. Her appeal to think out of traditional blocks hit the mark and I found her point about Iran being the only nation currently condemned in the both UNSC and IAEA board resolutions to be particularly irksome(though true). All in all the speech seemed quite Obama-esque, much smarter than anything i've ever heard from Clinton. It didn't help that both Moon and Amano used their opening remarks to ambush Ahmadinejad either.

In his domestic speeches Ahmadinejad is far more blunt and to the point, not to mention entertaining. He may be the most effective demagogue i've ever heard(and i mean that in a positive way). The closest he gets to it in English are his interviews, which i see as the main event whenever he is in New York. So far i think he's done a bang up job on that end. The only real danger there is when he gets edited unfairly.


Lysander said...

Didn't see either speech. Tony Karon wrote about it at Time magazine and seems to think Ahmadinejad was effective at winning over the NAM. And that the orchestrated Western walkout failed to impress.

Also, I hear the US being a lot more open about Israel's nuke program. Of course its all designed to form that "Arab coalition" against Iran, but the mere fact that Israel is an issue at all can be attributed entirely to Iran.

Darius said...

Masoud I am not sure where you are coming from with your comments. On the contrary Ahmadinejads speech was considerably better then Clintons. All she did was spread the usual charges that most of the NAM countries are all familiar with. I also thought that her tone was quite rude and aggressive both of which are massively disliked by people around the world. Ahmadinejad on the other hand touched on issues that are in the minds of most NAM members if not all.

lidia said...

"I found her point about Iran being the only nation currently condemned in the both UNSC and IAEA board resolutions to be particularly irksome(though true)."

So what? it only point to what both bodies really are - the puppets of imperilaism and Zionism.

DZ said...

Yes lidia, I agree fully, I thought Ban's 'lets be clear, the onus is on Iran!' comment to be funny and another testament on whats wrong with these 'International' organization. This kind of intense 'lobbying' on the part of the US shows that the US's position on the NPT and the Iran issue is not very strong nor popular.