This week, Iranian President Mahmoud ahmadinejad sent a letter to the President of the United States of america, George W. Bush. This letter is the first official exchange between the two countries since the Iranian revolution. The US government has chosen not to reply to the message. The US ambassador to the United Nations described the letter as unworthy of any discussions. "The thing speaks for itself" J. Bolton said.
I have reproduced below the ten key concerns expressed by Iranian President Mahmoud ahmadinejad. Is the man insane as the Bush administration claims? Is the letter unworthy of discussions? Is the US Government right to refuse a direct dialogue with the Iranians? Speak out. Tell us what you think.
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
Because of the possibility of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the country is occupied, about one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years.
Tens of thousands of young men and women--as occupation troops--put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sick and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
On the pretext of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no Weapons of Mass Destruction existed to begin with. Of course, Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, prisoners of war, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.
For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values [that Bush promotes forcefully], i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ, human rights and liberal values.
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
again let us assume that these events [The Holocaust] are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
Many thousands were killed in the process. Millions of indigenous people were made refugees. Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
a regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique--or at the very least extremely rare--in recent memory.
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ or Moses or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands--inside and outside Palestine--whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. all independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievably, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of the nations?
aside from the Middle ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether?
If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
Don't Latin americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth--including minerals--is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
The brave and faithful people of Iran, too have many questions and grievances, including the coup d' État of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic, support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country's progress)…
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
September 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
all governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems--and even hunts its opponents abroad.
September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services--or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? and, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
all governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. after 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the american people--who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks--some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity--some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the american people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?american citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way — and was the justification — for an attack on afghanistan.
again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly--for the public to, finally, believe--and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a deceptive climate? again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
Mahmoud ahmadinejad writes:
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them. The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?
In some US states, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist--to a larger or lesser extent--in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign--paid from the public treasury--be explained and be consistent with Christian principles?
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful--thus trading the approval of the people and the almighty with theirs'?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the spectre of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns?
Finally, the people will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office or not?
How much longer will the spectre of insecurity--raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction--hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today?
Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? and I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the american governments?
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.