"This conference and similar initiatives launched for the same purpose reveal the fact the fast-changing global developments have drastically transformed the international and regional security realities which necessitate a review and redefinition of the previous analytical and management tools.
"Perhaps, one may take the hasty measures, temporary alliances, the fast changing dialogues and policies as a testimony to the afore- mentioned claim. Therefore it is vitally important for all of us to find a way out of this dilemma by creating the required analytical and management capabilities. And any delay in this regard can potentially culminate in the eruption of new crises. And any mis-calculated efforts for the settlement of the key issues can prepare the ground for a new spate of confrontations."------
"However, we should know that peace cannot be equated with stability, because it connotes and entails more than that. And that is why our world has lost peace at the expense of stability for sacrificing freedom and justice. This applies not only to the past and present but to the future as well. This was also true about the regional states which were in the orbits of the two superpowers during the cold war era. It means that disrespect for the main ingredients of a sustainable security order has laid the breeding grounds for suspicion, hostility and ultimately confrontation with colonialism."
Unfortunatly always true,
"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the theory of the unilateral security order prevailed this further complicated the problem, because unilateralism essentially nurtures militarism"
I like that Larijani is honest enough to say "any other state in OUR region" and not "in the world", which is true. Certainly our democracy is better than Saudi, Pakistan, Bahrain, etc.
Islamic Iran has seen almost one general election each year. Do you know of any other state in our region which has been so much dedicated to democracy as Iran? Even if one can ever find any such state in our region its armed forces are so strong that they can change its democratic institutions when they wish so. But, let's see how the US administrations have been treating the democratic Iran. The policy they pursued in this regard was denial, isolation and sanctions.
I'm just pointint this out, because its sort of weird that he is quoting Nixon to support his speech,
Nixon in his book entitled 'Victory without war' sates: "In the west, we speak of the fundamentalists, while fundamentalist speaks of the problems of peoples. It is quite natural that they listen to them".
Security is not a one-way road. A sustainable security requires mutual understanding and close attention to the main ingredients of security. Security ought not to be approached as a trade.
"Mutual understanding is tied to constructive diplomacy and constructive diplomacy requires a common will and common will entails shared opportunities.------
There are a lot of good points here. First of all, Khatami mentioned the same point, about how te west can't just export their style of democracy to our region. You can't apply the exact same democracy in America in, let's say, Iraq. In a way, Larijani might also be talking about Iran's democracy when he says that demoracy is a process, and it has its difficulties.
Sometime, one hears here and there that some regional states lack cultural and political development for democracy. This is more of an irresponsible justification than a reality. Because democracy cannot be exported in the form of a package to a region. This requires practice. Wherever the process of democratization starts it has to be experienced and practiced and, of course, it would not be without difficulties. Yet, one has to note that without democracy real order and peace will be impossible.
Another mistake the west makes in dealing with the middle east (and I'd say other regions). They routinely lack the ability to understand that different cultures have different ways of approaching their lives.
The view which believes that there should be a single individual and social lifestyle in the world clearly lacks the intelligence to appreciate the cultural and sociological significance of other societies.
Western cynics might twist history as much as they want, but the below bolded was true.
The Islamic Republic of Iran was opposed to the occupation of Iraq from the very beginning. Through my country has suffered the most from the policies of Saddam's regime, it believed that the occupation of Iraq would breach international security. Even after the occupation of Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran was the only country in the region which supported the establishment of democracy, national government and national assembly as well as constitution of Iraq with a hope that they will help restore security in Iraq as early as possible.
The policy of denial, isolation, and adventurism sanctions only serve to further intensify instability in our region.
This is the part which has always bugged me. Iran's good intentions are always ignored, and while it may get a bit of media attention at the time, in a month or so, the thing fully disappears,
"They clearly see that Iran has played a unique role in the fight against drug trafficking in the region and has suffered immense human and material losses in that respect. Yet, all the efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran in this area have been surprisingly played down or ignored. Worse than that is what happened in Afghanistan.
Despite the positive role played by Iran in Afghanistan the United States called Iran as part of the evil axis. Even today, in spite of all the contributions made by Iran to help institutionalize the national government in Iraq, one can hear once in a while some irrelevant remarks about Iran. All these issues indicate that the theory of denial instead of constructive interaction is still being pursued as the basis of activities against Iran.
"It is obvious that the theory of denial does not change the outside realities and only affects the capacities which exist in the region for the establishment of a sustainable order, stability and peace.------
"Iran's National Security Doctrine is defensive, because Iran does not consider military actions as the solution to the problems. We have friendly ties with countries of the region and do not have any ambition towards their lands and power. Others in the region attacked Iran and we defended ourselves. Future will prove that there will be no harm from Iran to these countries.
And of course, the biggest irony,
"When Iran's territories were occupied by Saddam Hussein, and our people bombarded with chemical weapons our regional and foreign friends remained silent or supported Saddam Hussein. When times passed they realized that they made mistakes and Saddam Hussein became a problem for them."
Another double standarism. Imagine if a political party tried to assasinate key members of the Democratic or Republican party, and then wnet and hid away in Iran? How many bombs will be get?
"Iran in all issues behaved responsibly. We are victim of terrorism, president, prime minister, head of Supreme Court and numbers of cabinet members and ordinary people were killed by terrorists. Now the same terrorists live in some European countries without any problems."
And the Nuclear issue summarized perfectly and clearly by Larijani,
"We should accept that this principal due to abuse of some powerful countries has been damaged, or at least we can say it is under suspicion. The current example could be seen in Iran's nuclear case.
"Episode One: Forty years ago during the dictatorship of Shah, they planned a project for 20,000 Megawatt nuclear electricity and with the aid of US and some other European countries; they signed agreements to build a power plant. But when Iranian toppled the dictator, the west punished Iran and nullified all the contracts.
"Episode Two: Iran had to achieve nuclear know-how by itself, while it accepted NPT and was members of IAEA, Iran benefited IAEA the least and reached to the current position by relying on domestic science.
"Episode Three: Two years negotiation and suspension of all nuclear activities and the result was a plan that nothing was clear in that and as Mr. ElBaradei and other Europeans said it was an inappropriate plan.
"Episode Four: During the last year they imposed pressure on Iran with this policy that either we had to stop nuclear activities or they would refer the case to the Security Council and other threats.
Even after long negotiations with Mr. Solana, Iran's case was referred to the Security Council.
"These methods teach others that international arrangements cannot be accepted as a base among big powers and regional powers.-----
"The main concerns of those who talk with me is related to the future. Some of them frankly said that they could not accept that even Iran reaches to peaceful nuclear knowledge, because they are concerned about future wrongdoings."These comments are surprising. These kinds of justifications cannot be found in international laws, that before committing crime some are looking for punishment
But at the same time in response to the incentive package and also in our negotiations with Mr. Solana we said that we are ready to have all of our nuclear activities in a consortium so that others can participate in our activities and as the result we build confidence. Despite the fact that according to the international arrangements we are not oblige to do so, but to prove our good intention we are ready to do so. What is wrong with this logic? Does the attitude of the other side not create suspicion that either we should act like Israel and have atomic bomb and not accept NPT, or if we act in the framework of IAEA and NPT they are not going to consider rights for us?
"Repeatedly we announced frankly that in Iran's National Security Doctrine there are no rooms for atomic and chemical weapons and we consider them against the Islamic laws. Supreme Leader of Iran in this connection released a decree that mass destruction weapons are prohibited religiously. Besides, we know that Iran's action in this way will trigger atomic arm race in the region which as a result will endanger the peace and stability of the region and the world.
The need to suspend their activities before negotiations start has always been idiotic, and Larijani points this out. What is the harm anyway of negotiation?
"Now it has been almost eight months that such preconditions have inhibited the settlement of this issue. Now the question arises that if three out of these eight months had been spent on negotiations what possible damages could have occurred? And now that this has not happened what achievement has been made? In answer to this question, one may say that a resolution has been issued against Iran and this country has been brought under pressure. Was the original intention of this process anything other than finding a solution to this problem? So, one can see that this misguided approach has not solved the problem and has been originally launched with some other motives.
Links to his full speech (follow the first link, and use it to go to the other parts),