|
سرمقاله لوس آنجلس تایمز- 19 ژانویه
2006
Democracy,
in the end, will provide the ultimate
safeguard against nuclear
disaster, because a truly
democratic Iran, backed by a majority
of Iranians,
would feel secure enough not to pursue
dangerous
military adventures.
" ایران را
با دمکراسی خلع سلاح کنید "
نوشته : خانم
شیرین عبادی ومحمد سهیمی
....
ترجمه سه پاراگراف از مقاله
باید گفت که یک حمله نظامی تنها احساسات ناسیونالیستی را
مشتعل میکند . ایران عراق نیست . با در نظر گرفتن ناسیونالیسم تند
ایرانی و سنت شهادت شیعی هر حرکت نظامی عکس العملی را بوجود میآورد که
که سراسر منطقه را در خود خواهد گرفت . و آن منجر به مرگ و میر بیحساب
و ویرانی اقتصادی ، نه تنها در منطقه بلکه در سراسر جهان خواهد
گردید
لذا، در پاسخ
اینکه غرب چه عملی میتواند انجام دهد؟ باید گفت که کشورهای عربی باید
به سازمان ملل کمک نماید تا نماینده ویژه ای برای دیده بانی حقوق بشر
در ایران تعیین نماید ، تا هر ساله یادآور پرونده حقوق بشر در ایران در
مجمع جهانی سازمان ملل متحد باشد . ودر صورت زوال حقوق بشر ایران
را شدیدآ محکوم نماید ، چه برخلاف تصورعمومی روحانیون به انتقاد از
خارج حساسند .
.
پاراگراف پایانی مقاله :
دمکراسی سرانجام حراست نهائی در برابر مصیبت هسته ای خواهد
بود!
زیرا ایران واقعآ درسایه دمکراسی ، که اکثریت مردم آنرا حمایت
نمایند، بحد لازم در امنیت خواهد بود، تا که بخواهد بدنبال
ماجراجوئی های خطرناک نظامی برود
|
|
Los Angeles
Times
January 19, 2006 Thursday
Home
Edition
SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Editorial Pages Desk;
Part
B; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 885 words
HEADLINE:
Defusing Iran with
democracy
BYLINE: Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi,
SHIRIN
EBADI, a human rights advocate, was awarded the
2003
Nobel Peace Prize. MUHAMMAD SAHIMI is a professor
of
chemical engineering at USC.
DATELINE: Tehran
BODY:
LOST IN THE international fury over Iran's
partial
restart of its nuclear energy program, and
the
deplorable statements by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad
regarding Israel, has been the fact that respect
for
human rights and a democratic political system are
the
most effective deterrent against the threat that
any
aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to
the
world.
When the U.S. and its allies encouraged the shah
in
the 1970s to start Iran's nuclear energy program,
they
helped create the Frankenstein that has become
so
controversial today. If, instead, they had pressed the
shah
to undertake political reforms, respect human
rights and release
Iran's political prisoners, history
could have been very
different.
In the three decades since then, India, South
Africa,
North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have joined
the
nuclear club -- and most people would acknowledge that
the
democracies among them are viewed today as the
least threatening.
In the 1980s, South Africa's
apartheid regime made several
nuclear bombs, but the
democratic government of Nelson Mandela
dismantled
them. India has a nuclear arsenal, but few
perceive
the world's largest democracy as a global threat.
Nor
is Israel considered likely to be the first in the
Middle
East to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
But North Korea's
nuclear program is a threat because
its regime is secretive, its
leader a recluse. The
nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is dangerous
because the
military, which runs the country and is populated
by
Islamic extremists, helped create the Taliban and
allowed
Abdul Qadeer Khan to freely operate a
nuclear
supermarket.
Iran's nuclear program began
accelerating around 1997
when the reform-minded Mohammad Khatami
was elected
president -- just as Iran was developing
an
independent press, and just before a reformist
parliament
was elected in 2000. The reformists
supported the nuclear program
but wanted it to be
fully transparent and in compliance with
Iran's
international obligations. These were reassuring
signs
that it would not get out of control.
But instead of
backing Iran's fledgling democratic
movement, which would have
led to nuclear
transparency, the U.S. undercut it by demonizing
Iran.
While Khatami proposed people-to-people
dialogue
between Americans and Iranians, Washington chose
to
block Iranian scholars, artists and authors from
visiting
the U.S. Although Khatami helped the U.S. in
Afghanistan,
President Bush designated Iran a member
of the "axis of
evil."
By 2003, when it became clear that Khatami's
reforms
had stalled, the world started paying closer
attention
to Iran's nuclear program. So, what had
demonizing
Iran achieved?
The U.S. will not solve the
nuclear problem by
threatening military strikes or by dragging
Iran
before the U.N. Security Council. Although a
vast
majority of Iranians despise the country's
hard-liners
and wish for their downfall, they also support
its
nuclear program because it has become a source of
pride
for an old nation with a glorious history.
A military attack
would only inflame nationalist
sentiments. Iran is not Iraq.
Given Iranians' fierce
nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of
martyrdom,
any military move would provoke a response that
would
engulf the entire region, resulting in countless
deaths
and a ruined economy not only for the region
but for the
world.
Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also
be
counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the
Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and its "additional
protocol." Is the
world ready to live with such
prospects?
So, what can the
West do? Western nations should help
the U.N. appoint a special
human rights monitor for
Iran. It would remind the General
Assembly of Iran's
human rights record annually, and strongly
condemn it
if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to
the
general perception, Iran's clerics are sensitive
to
outside criticism.
The World Bank should stop providing
Iran with loans
and, instead, work with nongovernmental
organizations
and the private sector to strengthen civil
society.
The West should support Iran's human-rights
and
democracy advocates, nominate jailed leaders
for
international awards and keep the cause in the public
eye.
Western nations should downgrade diplomatic
relations if Iran
continues violating basic human
rights.
Iran is at least
six to 10 years away from a nuclear
bomb, by most estimates. The
crisis is not even a
crisis. There is ample time for political
reform
before Iran ever develops the bomb. Meanwhile, the
West
should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment
program (as
allowed under the nonproliferation treaty)
under strict
safeguards by the International Atomic
Energy Agency -- but only
when Tehran undertakes
meaningful reforms, including freeing
political
prisoners and holding free and fair
elections.
Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter
direct
negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and
the
most important nation in the Middle East not
to
communicate directly. The Bush administration should
not be
seduced by exile groups with no support in
Iran. Developing
democracy is an internal affair.
Democracy, in the end, will
provide the ultimate
safeguard against nuclear disaster, because
a truly
democratic Iran, backed by a majority of
Iranians,
would feel secure enough not to pursue
dangerous
military adventures. |