Sunday, October 10, 2010

Interview with Chinese Dissident Liu Xiaobo 'If the Games Fail, Human Rights Will Suffer'


With the Olympic Games rapidly approaching, more attention than ever is being focused on China's handling of protests in Tibet and on the state of human rights in the Communist country. SPIEGEL spoke with human rights advocate Liu Xiaobo about what to expect.

China's human rights record has been a focus in the run up to the Olympic Games.
China's government has come under massive international criticism over its human rights record in the run-up up to the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer. China wanted to use the Olympics to show the world a new, modern face but the plan seems to be backfiring as Western countries sharply criticize China's handling of protests in Tibet last month. Some have even openly considered boycotting the Games.

SPIEGEL spoke to prominent human rights activist Liu Xiaobo about the current situation of human rights in China and the prospects for change.

SPIEGEL: A few months before the Olympic Games, criticism is mounting against the Chinese government -- both for its activity in Tibet and the fact that it throws human rights activists such as Hu Jia in jail. Did Beijing underestimate the consequences of hosting the Games?

Liu Xiaobo: I don't think so. The leadership knew that the conviction of Hu Jia would ruffle feathers. But it wasn't reckoning with the protests in Tibet. Now the entire world has its eyes on China. The response of European countries has been especially tough, much tougher than the US response. That surprised Beijing.

SPIEGEL: Why did Beijing want to host the Olympics in the first place?

Liu Xiaobo: The Party leader at the time, Jiang Zemin, wanted to show the world China's new status. And in winning the bid, the leaders could show the people how strong the government was. Plus, the leadership wanted to use the Games to strengthen nationalist sentiment. After June 4, 1989…

SPIEGEL: …the Tiananmen Square Massacre…

Liu Xiaobo: …its legitimacy was seriously weakened. The party was desperate to boost patriotism.

SPIEGEL: The Communist Party continues to claim that the Games have nothing to do with politics.

Liu Xiaobo: For the party, the Beijing Games are the biggest political happening of 2008. Everything revolves around them. This will be a huge celebration for the President Hu Jintao and the Premier Wen Jiabao.

SPIEGEL: In order to win the bid, Communist party functionaries promised more democracy. Did you believe them at the time?

Liu Xiaobo: No. I've heard the government say many nice things. But it did make some gestures, like writing human rights protection into the constitution -- that surprised me. And it improved the conditions for foreign journalists: It used to be impossible for you to meet with me personally. But there still hasn't been a real improvement in the human rights situation.

SPEIGEL: Does the government respond to pressure form the outside world?

Liu Xiaobo: Yes. If it didn't, the human rights situation would be much worse.

SPIEGEL: What would happen if the Games were boycotted?

Liu Xiaobo: That wouldn't be a good way to punish China. If the Games fail, human rights will suffer. The government would stop paying any attention to the rest of the world. I personally think: We want the Games and we want human rights to be respected.

SPIEGEL: What are you expecting in the coming months?

Liu Xiaobo: As soon as the torch reaches Western Europe, there will be protests. I think the government will respond to foreign pressure and criticism to diminish both. I hope they will decide to release Hu Jia prematurely, for health reasons.

SPIEGEL: What will China look like after the Games? More liberal? More open?

Liu Xiaobo: It will all progress very slowly. But the demands for freedom -- on the part of ordinary people but also party members -- won't be as easy to contain.

SPIEGEL: Do you think there could be a Chinese Gorbachev one day?

Liu Xiaobo: I can't imagine that. But the party will gradually open up. For instance, it has already set a time limit for political reforms in Hong Kong. And in four years time, there won't be a strongman to name the General Secretary at the party congress. That means that the various factions will have to develop better rules for naming their leader. But there won't be a timeline for political reform.

Interview conducted by Andreas Lorenz.
(04/07/2008 www.spiegel.de/picture:www.nalair.fr)
Diplomacy more…

Sunday, September 19, 2010

An Interview with Dr Mahathir Mohamad


Access to information equals opportunities. With the Internet today, such access is almost limitless but only those who seize the opportunities will get ahead, says Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

IN a recent interview with Open University Malaysia (OUM), former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad shares his views on the challenges that educational institutions face and the direction they should take. He adds that immigration policies should be reviewed, as they stop the brains from coming in, but allow the uneducated to work here instead.

Below are excerpts from the interview.
Dr Mahathir believes that a lifelong learning habit begins with a love for reading.

Q: In some countries, going back to school is regarded as the norm. What are Tun’s views on lifelong learning? What does it take to encourage more Malaysians to participate in lifelong learning?
Dr M: We gain knowledge through many sources, among which is, of course, reading. To participate in lifelong learning, one must first love learning and to love learning, one must first love reading.

Of course, we can also acquire knowledge through television but we cannot gain an education just by watching television alone. They say a picture paints a thousand words. Sometimes when you look at a picture, you see not just one but many thousands of words. However, understanding still may not come and so you do not produce.

Reading is different. It stays in your mind longer. You learn when you read. You learn not only the knowledge contained in the book but also the language, the way the book is written.

So, reading improves communication. A person who watches television cannot learn to communicate; a person who reads books can. And communication is one of the weaknesses in human society. The ability to convey your thinking to another person is a communication skill.

Through reading, the process of lifelong learning begins. Once you start reading, you cannot stop reading. Of course, the person who starts watching television also may not be able to stop watching it, but what he learns from television may not be good for him. But when he reads, even if it is only a story book, he will, at least, acquire the skill of communication.

Reading also improves your perception of things and trains you to analyse and understand complex matters. The more you read, the more you acquire the experience of others albeit through the eyes of a skilful observer. Even if you are reading a story book, your ability to solve problems increases because you have, at least, read about it.

I started reading when I was young. Books tell me what people will do in 10 years’ time, they tell me how people think, they predict trends… If you don’t read, you will be left behind.

To encourage lifelong learning, you must instil a reading culture. Lifelong learning starts with reading, and can become a habit, just like reading.

Q: The world is increasingly becoming a global village and more of our young people are working overseas. How can we turn this increased mobility of youth and talent to our nation’s advantage?
Dr M: Globalisation is the trend today. But it aggravates the brain drain in Malaysia. To understand this, we need to look at our immigration policies, which were formulated in the 1950s when people could not travel easily.

We did not want people coming into the country then, so our policies stopped people coming in. We believed our people would not want to go out, so our policies did not stop them going out.

But today, the world has changed. It is now very easy to travel; it only takes about 20 hours to fly to the other side of the world. With this ease in travel, physical borders can no longer stop people from entering or leaving a country. So people go out, especially those with knowledge and skills. Other countries offer them high wages and we do not stop them, so they leave and we lose our best people.

At the same time, we have a policy which actually stops brains from coming in. But we also need workers, so we allow uneducated people to come in.

So, what we get is no inflow of brain but inflow of the brainless.

All this is because we are using an outdated immigration policy. We must remember that in future, all countries will have a multi-racial population. There won’t be a single-ethnic nation anymore. Five million of the people in France today are Algerians. England has many Indian restaurants. People will be moving around, either legally or illegally, and settling down where they like.

The only country that may not change is China, with its 1.3 billion people. People who go to China become Chinese. Kublai Khan conquered China and became Chinese. The Manchus conquered China and became Chinese. There are so many Chinese; you get diluted, the Chinese don’t.

To attract youth and talent, we need to change our policy to consider the mobility of youth and talent.

Q: What is the greatest challenge that higher education faces in the next decade? What opportunities should we look out for?
Dr M: You cannot recognise challenges and opportunities unless you understand what is happening around you. That is where learning comes in — learning helps you to comprehend, analyse and tackle problems.

Globalisation is clearly a challenge. With globalisation, your knowledge widens and you learn to deal with things you may not otherwise be able to.

Take a person born in the kampung, for example. His knowledge of things is limited to what he sees there. Once he moves to the city, he sees and learns so much more. Everywhere in the world, people in rural areas are regarded as less capable, less savvy, less sophisticated. But with globalisation, the kampung boy can cross new frontiers, embrace new values, see new ways of doing things. Globalisation gives the kampung boy a new world to comprehend, new skills to develop, new relationships to handle. Those are tremendous challenges.

Opportunities are different. Opportunities are affected by our ability to access and classify information. In the past, when we did not have much access to information, our opportunities were limited. Today, with the Internet, we have access to information and plenty of facts, but we need to know how to classify and use these facts.

So today, we have the capacity but the problem is, how do we use this capacity? The people who are able to use this capacity will see the opportunities – Google, Yahoo... In the end, seeing opportunities and seizing them, it is all up to you.

Q: Technology is said to have liberalised and democratised education and we must compete on a global platform. How successful have our local public universities been in this respect?
Dr M: Well, they are not too bad, but they are not too good either. University authorities need to reassess their roles. It’s not just a question of giving sufficient knowledge to students so that they can pass their exams.

Knowledge must be viewed in a wider context. In the hands of some people, knowledge can bring about harm. What I notice about our public universities is that not enough attention is given to human character development and nurturing value systems which can help students become useful people in society.

Without the right values, knowledge can even make someone a criminal. But if you are shaped by the education system to become someone useful in society, then education would have fulfilled the greater need. There is a need for universities to strike a balance between producing skilled knowledge workers and people with good moral values.

Q: What is Tun’s perception of world university rankings and the role of universities?
Dr M: Our universities today are much more aware that they are not just institutions for imparting knowledge but also institutions for researching new knowledge. Unfortunately, some still don’t have that mindset. Universities need to understand that their function is not just to transfer knowledge but also to create new knowledge through research, and to write about it, through producing papers. That is a crucial role.

Rankings should be based on the type of universities. Of course, you cannot compare an open university with conventional universities. You will get different results because the criteria are not the same. That, I think, is not important. What is important for an open university is whether it can provide education for people who have missed the boat, and for as many people as possible without compromising on quality.

When I was a small boy, my teacher only passed Standard Four. Later, a teacher had to have secondary school qualifications. Today, even that is not enough. Entry qualifications keep getting higher. Later, we will need more people with doctorates. The progress of society is such that, over time, the level of knowledge increases. So there is always a need to upgrade skills and qualifications, and OUM has a clear role to play.

Q: What is your secret for staying so young?
Dr M: Oh, I do my usual physical exercises and I enjoy horse riding. But I also read. It is something I have enjoyed since young. My father was very strict about reading. Everyday, when he got home from work, he would cough in front of the house and I’d rush to get a book to read so as not to get scolded. Besides, I can do other things when I am reading. That is good because I don’t like to waste time (smiles). (rainbowdiplomacy.co/mahathir-mohamed.blogspot.com/picture:procaricature.wordpress.com)
Diplomacy more…

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Consistent Support for Palestinian Independence


Special Interview Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to the Republic of Indonesia HE Faysal GOUIA with Yoedi Karyono and Dana Anwari in Office Space Ambassador on 22 April 2010

Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to Indonesia since 2006 Faysal GOUIA, gentleman born July 10, 1959, married and now blessed with two daughters. A daughter is now being completed pharmaceutical studies in Tunis, Tunisia, while a daughter was in Jakarta attended an international school in South Jakarta Cinere.

Have an educational background including business administration at the "Ecole Nationale d'Administration (National Administration Institute) ENA of Tunis. Hold and equivalent of a PHD in Public Administration from the "Ecole Nationale d'Administration (National Administration Institute) ENA of Tunis (1989). Hold on MA in Finance Management from the Finance School of Paris (1986). Holds a diploma from the Nationale Defenc Institute in Washington, DC (Near East South Asia Center from the Strategic Studies) (2002). Diploma in Home Studies from the "Bourgiba Institute of Foreign Languages" of Tunis (1995). Auditors of the "National Defence Institute of Tunis (2003).

Languages with very active, of course, Arabic, French and English. Indonesian while on duty when this place was also occupied with a very limited,''I will study harder Indonesian language, because it is very enjoyable. Attitude of Indonesian people are calm, friendly and ready smile made my task in this country is much more fun,''he said.

Faysal GOUIA professional experience among others in the tahun1984 until 1986 as Head of International Relations Division at the Ministry of Family and Woman Affairs. 1989 to 1993 as Head of the Bugdet Management Division at the Ministry of Finance. 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Director for South Asia Region at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Began his career as a diplomat at the Embassy of Tunisia in Washington the United States as Cultural and Press attaché in 1995 until 1997, the year 1997 to 1999 believed to be the Economic and Commercial Consular next year in 1999 until 2001 as Deputy Chief of Mission. In the year 2001 till 2005 he appointed as Director of Americans at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia.

In 2006, the man who has the hobby sport of football this country believed to be the Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to the Republic of Indonesia and located in Jakarta. Other activities Faysal GOUIA until such time as a Permanent Member of the "High Commission for Tenders" at the Prime Ministry. " Lecturer at the Diplomatic Institute of Tunis, and also as Attended Several United Nations Conference, and represented Tunisia in many conferences and seminars on issues related to foreign policy and international relations.

Consistent Support Palestine
Relations between the Republic of Tunisia and the Republic of Indonesia nurtured since 1950, and is now entering the 50th year of diplomatic relations. Even the two countries at the start of each relationship was solidified in the struggle for the independence of his country. ''The two countries initiated diplomatic relations five years before the Asian-African Conference which was monumental, and is remembered today in our country,''said Faysal.

According to Faysal, the first state visit President of the Republic of Indonesia Ir Soekarno to Tunisia in 1960 was a very memorable visit. President Soekarno was not only being familiar with the head of state, heads of government and key officials of other countries, but also be familiar and friendly with the people of Tunisia. ''This is what makes us the People of Tunisia was very impressed and become sweet memories to this day,;; he said.

Furthermore, said Faysal, the visit of President Suharto and several other officials and also visit of President Megawati Soekarno Puteri into our country makes the relations between the two countries are very familiar, and certainly return visit of the President of Tunisia as well as many more officials who are increasingly strengthening good relations both countries.

''Now my job as an ambassador is to further enhance the good relations the two countries have become much better. It's not just in the forum between countries and between peoples of both countries, but in a wider forum in the international forum,''said Faysal.

The two countries shared a majority Muslim population dominated by early sejaka nerada opened diplomatic relations both in one stance, the two countries have a firm political stance that supports the Palestinian People's struggle to achieve independence. Until now''in Tunis, the capital of our state buildings and facilities and equipment provided all the necessary facilities to representatives of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),''said Faysal.

Provision of facilities for the PLO it is not nonsense, when President Suharto's visit to Tunisia in the '90s and in the agenda of the visit include a meeting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, Tunisia gives a very respectable facility, a meeting between Arafat and Suharto made in Tunisia Presidential Palace, and of course with very tight security.

Political attitudes of both countries on the problems of Palestine, said Faysal, absolutely nothing changes, the two countries would continue to provide support to the Palestinians to achieve independence.

Tunisia's largest phosphate producer countries of this world, and also a date that became a favorite of Muslims in Indonesia, especially in the month of ramadan when breaking the fast, currently has a population of 10 million people, is located in very strategic areas in the continent of Africa and very close to the European Continent . In this country the cost of school education from kindergarten to university is free and all countries covered by the study. Budget''of education in our country is ¼ of the entire state budget, so we can finance that education,''said Faysal.

Gross national income (GDP) this country according to data from the year 2002 amounted to USD 21 billion with per capita income in the same year amounted to USD 2,150, while the total population of 10 million, because that was a very prosperous country, in addition to modern education and also the planning of the town very similar to the major cities in Europe, the most important trading relationship is France, Italy, Belgium, the United States.

The use of geothermal energy in this country for more than 90 percent, and this is an environmentally friendly energy, energy from fossil fuel use is there but very limited,''Our country import oil from neighboring countries in the Middle East, and was used for the purposes limited course, we prefer the energy that can be produced domestically, including the technology we use is a domestic product,''said Faysal.

Faysal said his country is very strict in protecting the environment, especially water supply and one of the mainstay of this country is tourism, where tourism is very popular among others in Kairouan, Monastir very beautiful beaches, ancient relics of the Roman ruins of Carthage, the ancient city of Sousse and also Yasmine Hammamet and there are many more beautiful places in this country.

''Our job in the government and also by umum is to maintain best possible hygiene lingkungan from all kinds of pollution and for future generations, not for us, especially with global warming is happening now become the responsibility of us all,''said Faysal.

Faysal GOUIA enjoyed the cuisine of Indonesia, because many use spices, especially the satay chicken. Recognizing that nature in Indonesia are also very beautiful. ''My family had vacationed in Gili Trawangan Lombok Island, this place is very beautiful.''

Ongoing relations between the two countries has reached 50 years old in 2010 and this is the golden anniversary, warning that good relations will be conducted over one full year and in May to the Jakarta Embassy of Tunisia will hold activities such as painting exhibitions and art form from his country , culinary festivals and the activities of state of Tunisia's cooperation with several five star hotels in Jakarta.

In addition activities such as art performances in Jakarta, Indonesia, and also shows artists who will perform the same activities in Tunisia. Seminars and discussions relating to the warning relations between the two countries will also fill the big events. ''My job is to do our best to improve relations between the two countries, and that's what makes me happy,''said Faysal. (rainbowdiplomacy.com/Photo: Dana Anwari)


Diplomacy more…

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The Iranian revolution 30 years: An Interview with Khomeini


31-year commemoration of the Islamic revolution of Iran. Memorial celebration of the Islamic Revolution of Iran began to be held from February 1 until February 11. Revolution's central figures are Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
What and how Khomeini's thoughts, we present an interview TIME Middle East Bureau Chief Bruce van Voorst with Khomeini.

Bruce van Voorst: Anti-American feelings in Iran are intense. Americans, in turn, are angry with Iran. How do you assess prospects for bilateral relations after the resolution—whatever form it might take—of the current crisis?

Khomeini: Iranian feelings are not against the American people, but against the American Government. When they refer to America in their slogans and denunciations, they mean the U.S. Government, not the U.S. people. I have received reports about large-scale, Administration-orchestrated anti-Iranian propaganda in the U.S. The Zionists especially are doing all they can to poison U.S. public opinion against Iran. As a result, there may be ill feelings toward Iran in the U.S. as reported. But if the facts penetrate the Zionist-imperialist propaganda screen, if we succeed in explaining the truth to the American citizenry through the mass media, then the Americans will most probably have a change of heart about us and reciprocate our amicable attitude. But we are under no illusion that the U.S. Government might change its hostile attitude. The U.S. Government has lost great interests in Iran. Still worse, the Administration has lost its political prestige in other countries as well.


We have been screaming for justice, for having our grievances redressed. The U.S. Government placed the Shah on the throne—that is, the Allies appointed him [in 1941] after ousting his father Reza Khan [who was] a British stooge. The U.S. Government consistently helped him stay in power in the face of our people's opposition to him. The Shah squandered all our resources—our national dignity, our natural assets, the talents of our youths and everything else we had. Obviously, Iranians cannot have a good view of the U.S. Government. And recently our people discovered that the Administration had turned its so-called embassy into a base for espionage and conspiracy against Iran. Spies were operating there under the pretext of being embassy personnel. Now that our people know this fact, they consider the Administration their No. 1 enemy.

In our view, the American people are not to blame for their Government's behavior in Iran. Americans should recognize the fact that the Administration has wronged not only us, but them as well. It has deprived us of everything through its lackey, the Shah. And it has placed the U.S. citizenry's honor in jeopardy. Because of U.S. Government behavior, Eastern peoples may now develop a pessimistic view of the American nation. The Americans should take this fact into consideration. Carter's continued presidency is a danger for America. It poses a threat to American national honor. If the U.S. Government —through military intervention, economic blockade, bully tactics and similar actions—succeeds in depriving us of justice, then the crisis will never be resolved, it will always rankle in the mind of our people. The American people should not allow Carter to follow this course because, gradually, Iranians will suspect that the U.S. people share Carter's ill will toward Iran. Then, enmity might set in between the two peoples.

Another option is for the U.S. Government to admit its misdeeds in Iran. These are numerous. Allowing a murderer to enter the U.S. is one of them. Still worse is the U.S. Government's imposition of a murderer as ruler of Iran. When Carter became President, he continued the policies of his predecessors —that is, he tried to perpetuate the rule of the criminal Shah and plunder Iran. When our nation rose against Pahlavi tyranny, Carter did all he could to keep him in power. He failed.

Our people's hatred for the Shah was too obvious for Carter not to notice. But still, in blatant disregard of the Iranian nation's feelings, Carter offered the deposed Shah refuge in the U.S. Not even the American people, I think, believe Carter's claim that he allowed the Shah to enter America on humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian considerations do not enter the American Government's thinking at all. Washington is prepared to do anything, kill 200,000 people in an atomic raid, in order to gain some profit. No one can believe these officials were humanistically motivated in giving the Shah an entry visa. In a sense, they have abducted the deposed tyrant to make sure he will not divulge their secrets. If we try him, all the facts the U.S. Government wants to cover up will surface. The whole world will know who has aided the Shah in his crimes.

Of course, once the American people discover what their President has done, they will not vote for him any more. In our view, all Carter is interested in is a second term in the White House, and he is prepared to do anything, even to sacrifice American national honor, in order to achieve his goal. We cannot believe the U.S. Government's claims to humanitarian motives. Is the Shah alone a human being? Aren't 35 million Iranians human beings? Weren't the Vietnamese human beings? We clearly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon ly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon with Carter's approval.

For us, [the resolution of the crisis] means the extradition of the deposed Shah to Iran and measures to compensate Iran for damages caused by his tyranny. There are, of course, damages that cannot be repaired. For instance, we have sustained about 100,000 fatalities tin the struggle against the Shah]. The labor and human talents wasted in pursuit of his harmful objectives cannot be retrieved. But we expect the repatriation of the wealth plundered from Iran.

The main point to bear in mind is that there is a new era. Iran today is not what it was under the Shah. A miracle has occurred. Under the previous regime, a single policeman could force all merchants in a huge bazaar to hoist flags to mark the Shah's birthday. These very people stood up against tanks and artillery with their bare hands. Even now, they wear burial shrouds, come here [to Qum] and declare their readiness for martyrdom. A nation thus transformed cannot be pushed around. Mr. Carter has not understood this transformation yet. He thinks a dictator can be imposed on the country again. But he must understand that Iranians will never put up with such actions. Carter must wake up.

And the Americans should vote Carter out of office. They should elect a suitable President. Then Iranians, if convinced that the U.S. Government does not intend to wrong them, will have normal relations with the U.S.—the kind of relations we have with other countries.

Bruce van Voorst: You have called the Shah a criminal, but you have not been specific. Could you give a rundown of what you feel his crimes were?


Khomeini: The crimes of the Shah are innumerable. Even a synopsis would be too long for me to present in a single session. In the last two years of the Shah's reign alone —when people rose to crush the imperial regime and establish an Islamic republic —this criminal killed more than 60,000 and maimed more than 100,000 of our people. During his reign, the Shah made us economically dependent on the U.S. and turned Iran into a bankrupt state. Our industry is dependent on the West. He has destroyed our agriculture. Politically, he toed the U.S. line and placed Iran in league with the oppressors and tyrants. The Iranian position in international forums during the reign of the Shah clearly demonstrates this fact. Even when the Shah, for fear of incurring the people's wrath, adopted apparently anti-U.S. positions, he would, behind the scenes, remain hand in hand with America. For instance, although he publicly supported the Palestinians, he gave oil to Israel, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. He fed Israel militarily—that is, he assisted Israel, this archaggressor, wholeheartedly. Militarily, the Shah made us thoroughly dependent on the U.S. [To perpetuate his monarchy] he gave our oil to the U.S. and used the proceeds to build military bases for America in Iran. Worst of all, he was determined to annihilate Islam and Muslims. By pushing our youth toward the West, he created a painful cultural dislocation. He brainwashed the people with Western propaganda. It takes gigantic efforts to liberate our society from the evil effects of his cultural treason.

Bruce van Voorst: How do you feel qualified to judge him? How can you be sure that your measures are truly in keeping with the law of Islam and the will of God? Does God ever speak to you or send you guidance?


Khomeini: What I said in response to the first question sums up the judgment of all Iranians. I have repeatedly stressed that I simply reflect the views of the Iranian people.

Bruce van Voorst: Doesn't the fact that virtually every government in the world condemns the seizure of the hostages raise doubts in your mind about your own position?


Khomeini: Most governments that have condemned Iran [for the embassy seizure] have done so under superpower pressure. We want to prove to the whole world that the superpowers can be defeated with the power of faith. We shall stand up against the U.S. Government with all our might. We fear no power.

Bruce van Voorst: You have objected to the West's efforts to impose its values on Iran. Why are you trying to impose Islamic values and Islamic justice on representatives of the West?

Khomeini: We definitely do not want to impose Islamic values on the West. Islam will never be imposed—neither on the West, nor on the East, nor on any particular individual or region. Islam is opposed to coercion. Islam stands for freedom in all its dimensions. It is up to the people them selves to accept or reject it.

Bruce van Voorst: Even if he wished to, the President could not legally hand the Shah over to Iran or to a third country with the intention of extraditing him to Iran. Do you expect Carter to violate the basic principles of his nation? Isn't that inconsistent with your moral and ethical goals?

Khomeini: Did the U.S. Government legally place Iranians under the Shah's machine-gun fire? And now, is it the same law that prevents the U.S. from extraditing the Shah? What kind of law is this? It permits the U.S. Government to exploit and colonize peoples all over the world for decades. But it does not allow the extradition of an individual who has staged great massacres in Iran. Can you call it law?

Bruce van Voorst: You talk so readily of the embassy as a "nest of spies." But there has been precious little evidence for this. Aren't you aware that it is the function of all diplomats to gather information about the country they are in, and this is considered legitimate? When there is evidence of espionage against diplomats, they are simply deported, not tried by the host country. If you objected to the activities, why didn't you just shut the embassy down?

Khomeini: There is a difference between gathering information and conducting espionage. Evidence so far collected proves that they ["the American spies"] had charted different conspiracies for different parts of Iran. They had plots for creating armed clashes in different regions. Is this how diplomats gather information? God willing, the Muslim students [holding the U.S. hostages] will reveal the details in the future. It is the government's job to close the embassy or allow it to function. I do not interfere in these affairs.

Bruce van Voorst: Are you aware how isolated you have made Iran? Even Islamic nations have condemned the hostage taking. You have pushed the U.S. out of Iran, but who will free you from pressures by the Soviet Union?

Khomeini: We have pushed the U.S. out of Iran in order to establish an Islamic government. We have not ousted the U.S. in order to replace it with the Soviet Union. Our people's slogans clearly demonstrate this fact. Throughout their struggle, our people would chant, "An Islamic republic—neither Eastern nor Western." If the Soviet Union should one day try to pressure us, we will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the U.S.—the force of our faith. We trust in God and the boundless might of the people.

Bruce van Voorst: You must accept the fact that America will never surrender the Shah to you. If you doubt this, you do not understand America. Would you release the hostages if the United Nations agreed to investigate your grievances? At the same time, should all dictators in the world be investigated by the U.N.?

Khomeini: In fact, we understand America well. We know that we can resist it and defend our honor. We have proved that we can resist its great injustice—harboring the Shah. We shall overpower America. We shall defeat it in the whole region. The [departure of the] Shah from the U.S. will not solve the problem. An international organization should make serious efforts to convince the U.S. to extradite the Shah to Iran. This organization should return all the wealth the Shah has plundered to its rightful owners—the people of Iran. Such an organization should also try all dictators. We will not surrender to injustice. We will not compromise with the oppressors.

Bruce van Voorst: Why can you not mediate this dispute in a reasonable manner? You have turned down Ramsey Clark, U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, the P.L.O., and barely listened to the papal representative. Don't you think these are honorable and serious individuals?

Khomeini: I have never said that these gentlemen are not honorable and serious. I have defended the Palestinians against Israel for more than 20 years. I used to point out the danger of Israel at a time when Israel and Palestine were unknown in Iran. We support the Palestinians' cause of justice against Israel, but a more significant issue is at stake now. I want to drive home to all peoples throughout the world the point that they should not try to mediate between the oppressor and the oppressed. Such mediation itself is a great injustice. We do not want any [would-be mediators] to commit this injustice. The right approach, under these circumstances, is to rush to the side of the oppressed and implacably attack the oppressor. It is for this reason that we rejected offers of mediation and will continue to do so. You may consider the mediation of your representatives between Israel and Palestine logical. We don't. The only logical course is defending Palestine. We approve those who strive for the international recognition of our just demands, but we shall never endorse oppressors, even if they act in our interest. It is among the eternally valid principles which we must always uphold.

Bruce van Voorst: If the hostage crisis is peacefully resolved, can you foresee a normalization of relations with the U.S., such as by the renewed sale of military spare parts and commercial ties on terms acceptable to Iran?

Khomeini: We will certainly reject any deal that harms the interest of Muslims. Otherwise, commercial ties and other exchanges, as long as they are in the interest of our nation, are agreeable to me. However, the government is responsible for signing such agreements, not I.

Bruce van Voorst: The economy has not revived. The poor in south Tehran are as poor as ever. The armed forces probably could not defend Iran against attack. There is no normal political activity. In light of this, is it not fair to say that the revolution has failed?

Khomeini: All these observations might be true. But the revolution has not failed. Indeed, the pillars of the revolution have been strengthened. It is a fact that our people have become accustomed to the revolution. They are all revolutionaries. They all welcome martyrdom. I declare, in all seriousness, that we can easily stand up against U.S. aggression. The U.S. may destroy us, but not our revolution. It is for this reason that I am confident of our victory. Listen to the people's slogans. For instance, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IMPRESS NO ONE. CARTER DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LOGIC OF MARTYRDOM. The U.S. Government has no idea what martyrdom is. In this spirit, we will solve all the problems of Iran. Although, I must point out, the damages we have sustained stem from more than 50 years of Pahlavi treason and will take at least 20 years to repair. Freedom and the Islamic republic have been established. But complete independence requires the dispossession of the East and the West, an objective we shall undoubtedly achieve.

Bruce van Voorst: Haven't you really lost a measure of control? The embassy takeover was allegedly undertaken without your knowledge or the support of the Revolutionary Council. Didn't the students take policymaking out of your hands? Do you really control the crowds?

Khomeini: Failure to understand Iranians leads to such mistakes in reading the situation. Iranians harbor profound enmity toward the U.S. Government because of the wrongs it has done them. We lead our people along the path to independence and liberation from U.S. domination. It is for this reason that our people have occupied the American nest of spies. The so-called embassy is certainly a nest of spies, and, in principle, what do we need the U.S. Government for? All Iranians are asking this question.

Bruce van Voorst: Sometimes you issue elamiehs ordering the people what to do, and then when you want to avoid responsibility, you reply you can do nothing, it is in the hands of the people or the students. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Khomeini: It is a fact that I, as Khomeini, express my views like all other people, comment on what should be done. But you should have no doubt that the hostages are in the hands of the students.

Bruce van Voorst: You have not studied seriously economics, international political relations. Your education is primarily theological. Doesn't this raise doubts in your mind that there may be factors in this equation you don't grasp?

Khomeini: We have discarded equations and social and political terms of reference so far used for assessing all the world's problems. We have built a new framework of values standing up for justice and fighting injustice. We will defend any upholder of justice and attack any perpetrator of injustice. You may name this value system whatever you like. We are laying the foundation of this value system, which, we hope, will one day replace—in the U.N., the Security Council, and other world bodies—the influence of the capitalists and the great powers that can now condemn out of hand anybody they want to. Yes, with your criteria, I understand nothing—and I am better off for it.

Bruce van Voorst: Have you ever been wrong about anything?

Khomeini: Only the Prophet Muhammad and other saints have been infallible. Everybody else makes mistakes. (rainbowdiplomacy.com/www.time.com)
Diplomacy more…