Monday, September 30, 2013

Letter to Benjamin Netanyahu Dated 9-28-13

Letter to Benjamin Netanyahu Dated 9-28-13
http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2013/09/letter-benjamin-netanyahu-dated-9-28-13/
Sunday, September 29, 2013
By Roseanne | Israel & Palestine

September 28, 2013

Roseanne Barr
Peace and Freedom Party
United States of America

Greetings Benjamin Netanyahu:

My name is Roseanne Barr. I am a Jewish American, actor, activist, writer, citizen of the United States of America, and I ran for President of The United States of America, coming in fifth place out of 52 candidates. I am writing you to warn you of the Geo Political Implications of the Israel/Palestinian Conflict. I will first begin this analysis with some history, with which you may or may not be aware.

Israel was created by The Royal Family of the Queen of England. The purpose of this creation was not for a homeland for Jewish People. The underlying purpose was to create a permanent geo political destabilization policy for the purposes of enhanced territory of the Post World War 2 British Empire.

In accord with the assessment of IDF Intelligence, using Al Qaeda troops to attack Syria, creates a destabilizing effect for Israel and the whole region. Al Qaeda created by British and Saudi Intelligence can’t be trusted to overthrow Assad and is allies. The entire policy is fool’s gold and will only harm Israel.

To the current situation with Israel and Palestine, you must stop supporting Hamas as a puppet regime against the legitimate Palestinian Authority of Mr. Abbas. Such a policy weakens Israel’s relationship with the EU and other important allies crucial to Israel. Also, you must weaken the Ultra Orthodox Factions of Israel, who don’t represent the mainstream wishes of Israeli Citizens. To continue, making peace is in Israel’s long term best interests. I suggest you take extreme security precautions to not be killed like Prime Minister Rabin, when you serve the Jewish people’s best interests.

Lastly and most importantly, you must make tangible strides to develop the economy of your Palestinian Neighbors. If you don’t, Israel will follow the fate of South African Apartheid, which is good for the Queen of England but horrible for Israel!

To be clear: The Queen of England will DESTROY Israel for her own purposes. Tony Blair can’t be trusted, he will double cross you. If Israel is to remain a viable state in the Westphalian Tradition, Israel MUST make peace with the Palestinians on the 1967 borders.

Regards, Sir!

Roseanne Barr, Peace and Freedom Party

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Rouhani, Blunt and Charming, Pitches a Moderate Iran

Rouhani, Blunt and Charming, Pitches a Moderate Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/irans-president-calls-on-israel-to-join-nuclear-treaty.html
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: September 26, 2013

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, center, spoke about nuclear disarmament at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. - Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS — Descending on New York this week in a Shiite cleric’s traditional fine wool robes, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, turned himself into a high-speed salesman offering a flurry of speeches, tweets, televised interviews and carefully curated private meetings.

On Tuesday, he capped his speech to the United Nations General Assembly with a nod to the Torah and the Psalms, which elicited applause and then, from him, the slightest hint of a smile. That day he also hosted a clutch of media executives as his chief of staff did what previously would have been unthinkable, meeting with a dozen influential American business leaders.

Over salmon kebabs in his hotel on Wednesday evening, he bluntly told a gathering of former United States diplomats and Iran scholars that he would never give up his country’s right to enrich uranium, but would swiftly resolve its nuclear standoff with the West. The next day he took aim at Israel’s nuclear arsenal in a public speech in the morning, and at night wooed his country’s influential, often skeptical diaspora with a banquet for 800.

But amid the fervent diplomatic theater, intended to end Iran’s isolation, it was at times difficult to tell whether Mr. Rouhani was a genuinely transformative Iranian leader, as his cabinet insisted, or a more polished avatar of the past, as his critics claimed.

In television interviews and public addresses throughout the week, he repeatedly sought to cast himself as a moderate ready to do business with the West. But it was also clear that whatever he said here was closely and instantly dissected at home, raising uncertainty over whether he could truly deliver a compromise with the West, if that is what he sought.

And so he condemned the Nazis in a television interview, but quickly hedged by saying he was not a historian. And even as he called for “time bound” talks to resolve the nuclear standoff, he skipped a lunch at which he might have had the chance to meet President Obama and shake his hand. Even charmed diplomats pointed out he offered no concrete proposals, while also noting he had received nothing concrete from Western officials to take back to his constituents.

Those who watched him closest this week describe Mr. Rouhani as serious, controlled and single-mindedly focused on message. He seemed intent to convey that he was prepared to take concrete steps to normalize relations with the West, that he was reasonable and that he enjoyed the backing of the street and his country’s religious establishment. He also seemed to be in somewhat of a rush, even while saying events might have been moving too fast.

“He did not come to New York to negotiate with speeches or throw in the towel and surrender. He came to New York to start negotiations,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “He is very clever, very pragmatic, but he’s also now showing himself to be bold, a risk-taker. He is taking the biggest risk any Iranian has in reaching out to the West.”

The contrast with his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could not be more stark. Mr. Ahmadinejad used his podium at the General Assembly to criticize Israel, deny the Holocaust and dangle the notion that Sept. 11 was the handiwork of Americans. Mr. Rouhani, in his public speeches, has mentioned Israel only once, calling on it to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.

All the same, he has insisted on Iran’s right to build what he says is a civilian nuclear program. At a dinner for about 20 former diplomats and Iran scholars on Tuesday at the One UN New York, a hotel across the street from the United Nations building, one guest recalled that Mr. Rouhani was bluntly asked: What is Iran doing and why is it doing it?

“His answer was very simple,” said the guest, who could not be named because it was a confidential meeting. “We are enriching. We are doing it because it is our right.”

The only time the usually unflappable Mr. Rouhani was mildly exercised, the guest said, was when he spoke of Israel’s complaints about Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Rouhani, he recalled, sharply pointed out that Israel itself had nuclear weapons.

The next morning, speaking at a meeting on disarmament, Mr. Rouhani called on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.

Remarks like that prompted some critics to say that Mr. Rouhani was simply a camouflaged version of Mr. Ahmadinejad, pressing the same aims. “Rouhani came here today to cheat the world, and unfortunately many people were willing to be cheated,” Israel’s minister of intelligence and internal affairs, Yuval Steinitz, said Tuesday at the United Nations.

Gary Samore, a former Obama adviser, and now the president of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the substance was “very similar to Ahmadinejad’s, but he says it in a much kinder and gentler way.”

“That’s the definition of a charm offensive,” he continued.

To foreigners, Mr. Rouhani may seem like something of a paradox. He wears the garb of a cleric, though with high-end dress shoes. He prefers to be called Dr. Rouhani, for his doctorate in law, rather than by his clerical title. His office has used Twitter to congratulate Iran’s women’s volleyball team and blast excerpts from his address at the General Assembly.

“He’s far from being a traditional Shia cleric,” said M. Hossein Hafezian, who worked with him for nearly 10 years at his Center for Strategic Research in Tehran. He described Mr. Rouhani as a political “insider” and a moderate, but one who has shunned being called “westernized or liberal, because that would be a curse.”

One diplomat here described him as so composed while meeting one of his Western counterparts that he seemed hard to grasp. The diplomat, who asked not to be identified because of the delicacy of the bilateral meeting, said he was struck by the fact that Mr. Rouhani “didn’t have advisers whispering in his ears the whole time.”

Mr. Rouhani’s interest in lowering tensions with the West is most directly helped by his closest aides. He has surrounded himself with men, who, like other Iranian bureaucrats, favor trim beards and suits without ties, but who speak the language of the American elite. Several, like his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, were educated here.

Perhaps the most unexpected — and closely guarded — encounter this week was attended by Mr. Rouhani’s chief of staff, Mohammad Nahavandian. He attended a breakfast meeting on Tuesday, organized at his request, with about a dozen New York business leaders, most of them retired, from the banking and energy sectors. His message, according to the breakfast organizer, was that Iran is now pro-business and welcomes private investment, if and when sanctions are lifted.

“This was the beginning of exploring if something like that could happen,” the organizer said, asking to remain anonymous because of the delicacy of the gathering.

Still, said William H. Luers, a retired United States ambassador who now runs an advocacy group called The Iran Project, Mr. Rouhani’s greatest challenge would be to convince skeptics in Iran and the United States. “He has to demonstrate this is more than a charm offensive, that he means what he says, that if there’s a response he’s ready to be engaged,” Mr. Luers said.

The same applies to Mr. Obama, he added. “It’s too far along,” Mr. Luers said. “We’ve said too much on both sides. There’s too much distrust to just say we had a good conversation.”

A version of this article appears in print on September 27, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Blunt and Charming, Making the Case for Iran.

MPAC and its agenda of malice and mischief – by Agha (Shaukat) Jafri

MPAC and its agenda of malice and mischief – by Agha (Shaukat) Jafri
http://lubpak.com/archives/284655
posted by Taj | September 28, 2013


In keeping with an enriched tradition of Unity and Brotherhood within the ranks of Ummah, the Mission of Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations organizes every year, a forum of friendship during the week of UN General Assembly Session in New York. This event of ecumenical elegance, usually includes various Muslim leaders from all across North America to meet and greet the President of the Islamic Republic as well each other so as to develop ongoing relationships of respect and responsibility among themselves. A few members hailing from academia and domestic political circles belonging to other faiths are invited as well to insure that the Muslim world is extremely cognizant of the need for an Inter-faith dialogue and understanding at all times. No other Islamic state offers a similar venue to the Muslim leadership of North America, and even if it does, Shia and Sufi Muslims are kept out of such gatherings.

This year’s event took place on Tuesday, September 24, 2013, where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farakhan, Al-khoei Foundation President Sheikh Fadhel Al-Sahlani, Sufi scholar Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, Professor Emeritus Dr. Abdul Aziz Sacchadena, ISNA leader Dr, Sayed Saeed, ICNA president Dr. Naeem Baig, Imam Sayed Moustafa Al- Qazwini, Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, Sheikh Mohammad Sarwar, U.S. Congressmen Keith Ellison and Jeffrey Meeks among other dignitaries were in attendance. Dr. Mohammad Khazzae, the permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations opened this two hour festivity by introducing Dr. Hasan Rohani, the President of Islamic Republic. Dr. Khazzae selected 18 leaders from the participants and requested that they share their thoughts with President Rohani. Almost every Muslim leader spoke with great eloquence as each and every one of them addressed President Rohani with utmost respect and reverence, expressing a desire that the moment has arrived to initiate a detente between the Islamic Republic and the West. This common plea, thus became the theme of this glorious gathering. President Roohani expressed his appreciation as he appeared pleased and greatly encouraged.

Salam Al- Marayati, the MPAC representative and a first time entrant to this occasion was an exception to the rule. At his turn, he began with his deleterious diatribe by injecting the crisis in Syria at this discussion. As a new comer to the gathering, he appeared totally out of order and seemed to lack the maturity in observing the decorum of the event. The participants quietly endured his accusatory and venomous diatribe both in his text as well as his tone while addressing President Roohani. He insinuated that since Islamic Republic is involved with assisting the Syrian government, it must stop the killing in Syria thus attempting to incriminate Iran in this debacle.

Al-Marayati and his MPAC never decisively supported almost a million Arab and Kurd Muslims who were slaughtered by Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad. To the contrary, MPAC condemned Saddam’s execution and questioned the motives of those who carried it out! . It is so disingenuous, for the MPAC representative, who just a week ago clandestinely ran to the White House with its partner in Crime CAIR, urging the US to strike and strike quickly on Syria. Characteristically Al- Marayati made no mention of his benefactors Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the states that not only instigated the so-called rebels for starting this bloodbath in Syria, these Satanic Salafis still continue to arm and finance the ranks of these rebels that are heavily infested with the most bloodthirsty cannibals known as Al-Qaida, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and Akhwan ul Muslimeen.

Al-Marayati showed his two faced approach as he raised his concerns about a half dozen individuals and their release from the Iranian prisons. And yet this same Al-Marayati and his MPAC have shown no sympathy for thousands of Bahraini and Eastern Saudi Arabian Shia Muslims who had been tortured and incarcerated for years and whose innocence have been repeatedly proved by numerous international tribunals, but they still continue to rot in the Jails of that most cruel and criminal Monarchies.

As a result of Al-Marayati and his MPAC’s demeanor as well as their discourse during the past 12 years, the Shia Muslims at large have lost all faith and confidence in this group’s credentials and its credibility and from here onward we will not recognize MPAC as part of Muslim leadership. It so hypocritical that Al-Marayati’s is a signatory tocode of honor recently signed by notable Shia and Sunni organizations. Henceforth, with a tremendous amount of pain, the majority of Shia Muslims disassociate from MPAC, and call upon the signatories code of honor to see through the hypocrisy of MPAC (aka Marayati Personal Agenda Corporation) and promotion of Al Qaeda and Salafi Deobandi Wahhabi mindset. MPAC should be held to account its munafiqiyat and withdrawn from the document to preserve its integrity and credulity.

It does not need much of an imagination to picture the discomfort and dismay of the Salafist chronies and proxies, as events unfold on the rapprochement between Iran and US, with the historic phone-call between President Roohani and President Obama ending with the familiar words of farewell of KHODA HAFIZ by President Obama. Is this also KHODA HAFIZ to Salafi/Deobandi cabal and its rein of terror.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov at the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov at the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly
http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/RU_en.pdf
September 27, 2013


Distinguished Mr. President,

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

The international relations become increasingly complex and multi-dimensional while the developments in the world are even more rapid and less predictable. Under these circumstances as never before there is an urgent task to agree upon collective responses to the key issues of today. It is solely within the power of such a truly universal organization as the UN to address this task. Moreover, these solidarity efforts might be productive only if' they reflect all the spectrum of views of the international community on the global challenges and threats, all historical experience and all cultural and civilizational diversity of the modem world.

For most of the members of the United Nations family this approach is an axiom. However, there is also another tendency within which the collective actions are understood primarily as the agreement with the viewpoint of one group of countries. Such views transpire in various areas- on issues of international security, settlement of the conflict situations, functioning of the world economy, the choice of the development models and core values.

Many problems of today's world have been reflected in the tragic situation in Syria and ambiguous development of events in the Middle East and North Africa on the whole. From the very beginning of the turmoil in this region Russia has consistently called for the elaboration of a common approach by the international community, which would combine the support to the Arab peoples on the way of transformations and the understanding of the fact that objectively these processes would be lengthy and sometimes painful and that it would be quite important not to harm them by rude outside interference. We have emphasized the need to act in a balanced way and take into account that complex developments are taking place, which are associated, among other things, with a strenuous search for compromises among various ethnic and religious groups that make up the mosaic of the Arab societies. We have called consistently for the choice of the evolutional way of development and peaceful settlement of crises through national dialogue and reconciliation.

Another point of view has manifested itself in the attempts to determine who is legitimate or is not among the leaders of the MENA region and impose the opinion regarding which side should be supported in the domestic national conflicts, and dictate from outside the ready-made prescriptions for democratic transformation.

The desire to portray in a simplified way the developments in the Arab worlds as the struggle of democracies against tyrannies or the good against the evil has long obscured the problems associated with the rising wave of extremism which spills over to other regions today as well. The terrorist attacks in Kenya have demonstrated all the gravity of this threat. It is common knowledge that the jihadist groups that comprise quite a few radicals coming from all parts of the world are the most combat-capable units of the opposition. The goals they pursue have nothing to do with democracy and are based on intolerance and aimed at destruction of secular States and establishment of caliphates. It is hard to call as far-sighted the policy which on substance either mounts military persistence as in Mali or provides to the same groups support as in Syria.

The use of chemical weapons is admissible. This does not mean, however, that one can usurp the right to accuse and pass verdicts. All the incidents associated with the use of chemical weapons by whoever that might be in Syria must be investigated in a professional and unbiased manner and then examined by the UN Security Council exclusively on the basis of facts, rather than allegations and assumptions.

Recently, a common argument has been increasingly used to prove that the threat or use of force directly prohibited by the UN Charter is nearly the most effective method to address international problems, including settlement of national domestic conflicts. There are attempts to extrapolate such an approach also to the situation in Syria. This happens despite the fact that all the experience of such interventions with the use of force in the recent years has proven that they are ineffective, meaningless and destructive. This is an extremely dangerous path leading to the erosion of the foundations of today's world order and subversion of the WMD non-proliferation regimes.

It is alarming to hear the statements on the right to use military force to ensure one's own interests in the Middle East region under the pretext of the "remaining demand for leadership" in the international affairs. All the recent history testifies that no State - no matter how big or powerful - can cope alone with the challenges of that scope faced by mankind today.

There is no doubt that leadership is required. However, today it can be only the collective leadership based on the agreed upon actions of the leading member of the international community with strict respect of the principles and norms of the international Law.

The growing understanding of this reality has achieving Russia-U.S. understandings on putting under opened the way towards international control and subsequent elimination of the Syrian chemical arsenals. This became possible thanks to the decision by Damascus to join the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and fulfill relevant obligations following the expedited procedure. We expect that the decisions by the OPCW Executive Council and the UN Security Council will contribute to establishing a required framework for elimination of chemical arsenals in Syria.

The progress in chemical disarmament in Syria should give an impetus to implementation of the existing arrangements to convene a conference on establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery in the Middle East. There are a number of complicated issues related to ensuring full participation of the countries of the region in the conference, but they cannot be referred to indefinitely. This is exactly the case when true leadership and will must be demonstrated for the common benefit.

People continue to die and peaceful civilians suffer every day in Syria. The religious minorities including Christian communities become victims of this conflict, which increasingly acquires a sectarian character. Virtually the only possibility today to put an end to this turmoil is to move from a deadlock the process of political settlement of the Syrian crisis. Russia continues to work energetically for the earliest convening of a peace conference to implement the Geneva Communiquÿ of July 30, 2012. We hope that following the government of Syria the opposition will also constructively respond to the Russia - U.S. initiative.

The Syrian crisis should not overshadow the task of addressing the Palestinian problem. We expect that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will stand up to the level of their responsibility for the future of their people at the current critical stage when the parties resumed direct talks after a lengthy interruption. Duly recognizing the U.S. efforts in the Middle East settlement we believe it is necessary to intensify the activity of the Quartet, which remains the internationally recognized mechanism of assistance to the peace process in the region on the basis of the relevant decisions of the UN, the Madrid principles and the Arab Peace Initiative. It is also important to ensure a close involvement of the Arab countries in the activities of the Quartet.

The approaches based on negotiation are required as well with respect to other situations, including the Iranian nuclear program and the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula. As President Vladimir Putin noted in the recent article published in the New York Times - we must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

This would help improve the international environment and contribute to increasing collective efforts to counter the global challenges, including terrorism and drug trafficking. Russia intends to pay a priority attention to these tasks during its presidency in the G8 in 2014. Today when the solid frame of the bipolar system has been long relegated to the past, the strengthening of the democratic foundations both within the States and in the international relations is becoming the sign of the times. This means in particular that the recognition of the right of peoples to independently determine their destiny and to choose the optimal forms of social and political structure and social and economic systems should become an undisputable norm of conduct. In the same way, the complex of exclusiveness and supremacy of one's own customs in the human rights area should be abandoned and instead the universal criteria enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be used as a guideline. Moreover, it is important to respect the traditional values that are common for all the religions.

It is obvious that a genuine partnership is hardly achievable without relying on the foundations of economic cooperation. The prevailing majority of States is interacting within the WTO and in this sense they are operating already in the common economic space. This creates the prerequisites for working towards harmonization of integration processes in various regions of the world instead of trying to artificially confront them against each other by creating new division lines. Russia proceeds exactly from this understanding in its joint work with its partners towards the establishment of the Eurasian economic union.

Russia attaches a great importance to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and drafting on their basis the global development agenda for the period after 2015. Its main priorities are- the eradication of poverty and support to economic growth through expanding the investment opportunities and creating new jobs. Enhancement of energy and transport infrastructure, fight against infectious diseases and road safety are among the most urgent issues.

Cooperation between States should rely on efficient mechanisms and sufficient resource basis. We support in this context the further strengthening of the coordinating role and potential of the UN Economic and Social Council. During its presidency in the Group of 20, Russia is consistently conducting its policy towards the development of its interaction with the United Nations. We consider the resolution of the General Assembly on the relations between the UN and G20 to be a realistic program of cooperation for a long-term perspective.

I firmly believe that by joining our efforts on the basis of true respect and taking account of the interests of all and everyone we will be able to move forward towards achieving the high goals proclaimed in the UN Charter.

White House initiated telephone contact with Obama: Rouhani

White House initiated telephone contact with Obama: Rouhani
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/28/326537/us-initiated-obamarouhani-contact/
Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:27PM GMT

Iran’s President talks to reporters after arriving in Tehran from a visit to the US, September 28, 2013.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani says the phone contact between him and US President Barack Obama was initiated by the White House.

Rouhani made the remarks in Tehran on Saturday upon arriving from a visit to New York to attend the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

“Yesterday, when we were about to head to the airport, they told me that the White House has contacted our permanent envoy to the UN in New York and Mr. Obama is willing to have a short phone conversation with me, which actually happened as we were about to leave. They contacted our envoy’s cell phone and I had a conversation with Mr. Obama,” Rouhani told reporters.

He said that Iran’s nuclear program was at the heart of the conversation.

“I stressed in the conversation that the nuclear issue is not only the issue of the [Iranian] nation’s rights as well as Iran’s development but it is also related to Iran’s national pride,” said the Iranian President, adding that Obama, acknowledged Tehran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology in the conversation.

The Friday telephone call was the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The United States, Israel and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran has categorically rejected the allegation, stressing that as a committed member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is entitled to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that the Iranian nuclear energy program has been diverted toward military objectives.

AR/HGH

Obama says talks with Rouhani shows possibility of moving forward

Obama says talks with Rouhani shows possibility of moving forward
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/27/326405/obama-we-can-reach-solution-with-iran/
Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:31PM GMT

US President Barack Obama says his conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani by phone shows the possibility of moving forward over Iran’s nuclear energy program.

"Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear program," Obama said on Friday.

After the conversation, Obama said he believes the two sides can reach a comprehensive solution over Iran's nuclear program.

"I reiterated to President Rouhani what I said in New York. While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama said.

Obama also described his conversation with President Rouhani as an “important opportunity in Washington’s foreign policy.”

The Iranian president also confirmed the phone conversation in a series of messages on Twitter.

The phone conversation was the first direct communication between the presidents of the two countries since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979.

"Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. President Rouhani has indicated that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons," Obama said.

"I've made clear that we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of Iran meeting its obligations. So the test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place," he added.

The remarks came one day after Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany (P5+1) held a meeting in New York.

US Secretary of State John Kerry called talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif "constructive," saying the Iranian side put some "possibilities" on the table over Iran’s nuclear energy program.

"We've agreed to try to continue a process that would try to make concrete and find a way to answer the questions that people have about Iran's nuclear program," Kerry said.

The next round of nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 are scheduled to be held in Geneva on October 15 and 16.

AGB/AGB

President al-Assad receives phone call from President Maduro... Venezuela supports Syrian people against terrorism

President al-Assad receives phone call from President Maduro... Venezuela supports Syrian people against terrorism
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/09/27/504559.htm
Sep 27, 2013


Damascus, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday received a telephone call from President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela who expressed solidarity of the Venezuelan people and their support to Syria in the face of the war it carries on against terrorism.

During the phone call, the two Presidents exchanged viewpoints on the latest developments in Syria.

President Maduro renewed support for finding a political solution to the crisis in Syria, rejecting any form of foreign intervention, particularly the threats of launching military aggression on the Syrian people.

He affirmed that Syria's steadfastness, as people and army, is now changing the map of international balances.

President al-Assad, for his part, thanked President Maduro and the Venezuelan people for their stance in solidarity with the Syrian people, stressing that this stance boosts the fraternal, consolidated relations which gather the two friendly peoples who stand, each in its region, in the face of attempts to dominate the independence of the two countries' decisions.

Mazen

Assad y Maduro intercambian puntos de vista sobre Siria

Assad y Maduro intercambian puntos de vista sobre Siria
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/09/assad-y-maduro-intercambian-puntos-de.html
27/09/13
Etiquetas: siria, venezuela


Damasco-SANA

El presidente Bashar al-Assad, recibió en la noche de este jueves una llamada telefónica del presidente Nicolás Maduro, presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en la que Maduro expresó la solidaridad del pueblo venezolano y su apoyo a Siria en la guerra que está librando contra el terrorismo.

Durante el contacto telefónico, ambos presidentes intercambiaron los puntos de vista sobre los últimos acontecimientos en Siria, donde el presidente Maduro reiteró el apoyo a una solución política a la crisis en Siria y el rechazo de su país a cualquier tipo de intervención exterior, sobre todo las amenazas de agresión militar contra el pueblo sirio, reafirmando que la firmeza de Siria, pueblo, ejército y Estado, está cambiando el mapa de equilibrios globales.

El presidente al-Assad agradeció al presidente Maduro y al pueblo venezolano por sus posturas de solidaridad con el pueblo sirio, subrayando que esta posición refuerza las sólidas relaciones fraternales que unen a los pueblos de los dos países, que enfrentan los intentos de dominar la independencia de sus decisiones soberanas.

sana

Ruhaní y el Holocausto

Ruhaní y el Holocausto
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/09/ruhani-y-el-holocausto.html
27/09/13
Etiquetas: iran, judio, medios de comunicacion

Los medios iraníes han acusado a la cadena estadounidense CNN de tergiversar la entrevista al presidente iraní, Hasán Rohaní, en concreto sus comentarios sobre el holocausto judío, que se han divulgado por otros medios internacionales.

La agencia estatal FARS ha criticado la entrevista del presidente Rohaní titulada "El nuevo presidente de Irán: 'Sí, el holocausto sucedió'", que fue publicada este miércoles en la página web de la CNN y transmitida por televisión. FARS asegura que la CNN "ha agregado o cambiado partes del discurso cuando Christiane Amanpour [la entrevistadora] le preguntó sobre el holocausto".

"Una de las cosas que su antecesor [el presidente Ahmadinejad] hacía desde esta misma plataforma era negar el holocausto y fingir que era un mito; me gustaría conocer su posición sobre el holocausto, ¿acepta que sucedió y lo que fue?", preguntó Christiane Amanpour.

Según FARS, Rohaní dijo literalmente lo siguiente: "He dicho antes que no soy historiador y que son los historiadores quienes deben especificar, declarar y explicar los aspectos de los acontecimientos históricos, pero condenamos totalmente cualquier tipo de delito cometido contra la humanidad a lo largo de la historia, incluso el crimen cometido por los nazis contra los judíos y no judíos, de la misma manera que lo hacemos si hoy en día se comete algún delito contra cualquier nación o cualquier religión o cualquier pueblo o cualquier creencia, lo condenaremos como crimen y genocidio. Por lo tanto, lo que hicieron los nazis es condenado, pero los aspectos de los que usted habla, la clarificación de estos aspectos es el deber de los historiadores e investigadores, yo no soy historiador".

La CNN publicó la siguiente versión: "He dicho antes que no soy historiador y luego, cuando toca hablar de las dimensiones del holocausto son los historiadores quienes deben comentarlo. Pero, en general, le puedo decir que cualquier crimen que sucede en la historia contra la humanidad, incluso el delito que los nazis cometidos contra los judíos y no judíos es reprobable y condenable. Cualquiera que fuera el crimen que cometieron contra los judíos, lo condenamos, quitar vidas humanas es despreciable, no hay ninguna diferencia si esa vida es una vida judía, cristiana o musulmana, para nosotros es lo mismo, pero quitar la vida es algo que nuestra religión rechaza pero esto no quiere decir que por otro lado se pueda decir 'los nazis cometieron un delito contra un grupo, pues, ahora, deben usurpar la tierra de otro grupo y ocuparlo'. Esto también es un acto que debe ser condenado. Debe haber una discusión ecuánime".

Después de que la noticia fuera publicada por FARS, la CNN cambió la información sobre el vídeo de la entrevista y ahora avisa de que son solo fragmentos, pero FARS sigue afirmando que "no está claro por qué los fragmentos de la traducción deben ser más largos que las declaraciones del presidente Rohaní en el vídeo".

En una entrevista previa a la cadena NBC New, Hasán Rohaní contestó a una pregunta semejante diciendo: "No soy historiador. Soy político. Lo que tiene importancia para nosostros es que los países y la gente en la región crezcan más cerca unos de otros y puedan evitar la agresión y la injusticia".

RT

Obama llamó a Rohani

Obama llamó a Rohani
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/09/obama-llamo-rohani.html
27/09/13
Etiquetas: EE.UU, iran, obama

"CREO QUE PODEMOS ALCANZAR UNA SOLUCION CONSTRUCTIVA"

El presidente de Estados Unidos habló telefónicamente con su par de Irán para conversar acerca de "un acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear" de la República Islámica. El diálogo, confirmado por el propio Obama, representa la primera comunicación directa entre los líderes de ambos países desde la Revolución Islámica de 1979.

"Si bien seguramente habrá importantes obstáculos para avanzar y el éxito no está garantizado, creo que podemos alcanzar una solución constructiva", dijo Obama a periodistas. "El hecho de que esta es la primera comunicación entre un presidente estadounidense y uno iraní desde 1979 subraya la profunda desconfianza que hay entre nuestros países. Pero también apunta a la posibilidad de permitirnos superar esta difícil historia", agregó.

Asimismo, el mandatario elogió las propuestas de los iraníes sobre su programa nuclear, y destacó que hay "una base para una resolución". Rohani y Obama indicaron a sus equipos seguir trabajando en un acuerdo, ante lo que el estadounidense aclaró que "durante este proceso estaremos en estrecho contacto con nuestros amigos y aliados en la región, incluyendo a Israel".

Los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU y Alemania se reunieron el jueves con diplomáticos iraníes para hablar de la cuestión nuclear y acordaron volver a reunirse el mes que viene.

Página 12

Friday, September 27, 2013

Dr. Rouhani's speech in a gathering convened by Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York

Dr. Rouhani's speech in a gathering convened by Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
http://www.president.ir/en/71857
news id: 71857 - Friday 27 September 2013 - 08:50
What follows are excerpts of President Rohani’s speech:


Ladies and Gentlemen

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you face to face and discuss a number of issues that have preoccupied all of us for many years. I believe I could talk to you today as colleagues talk to each others, as I had the same job as yours until recently, leading a think tank i.e., the Center for Strategic Research, in Tehran for many years. I believe that more interaction at the level of think tanks may help foster more accurate knowledge and understanding among the peoples and the leaders of our two countries, thus thwarting biases and false prejudgments from serving as basis for policy making.

During my years in office, the word 'moderation' and common sense will guide my Government in making and implementing policies in every field. I ran on the platform of 'moderation' and won the election by a large margin. Thus, by the virtue of the strong mandate that I received from the electorate, I am committed to operating in the framework of moderation, which calls, inter alia, for a balance between realism and the pursuit of the ideals of the Islamic Republic.

In the field of foreign policy, that brings me to discard any extreme approach in the conduct of our relations with other states. In this framework, we will seek effective and constructive understanding and interaction with the outside world, focus on mutual confidence building with our neighbors and other regional and international actors and try to orient our foreign policy towards economic development of our country. To this end we will work on easing and removing tensions in our foreign relations and strengthening our relationship with our traditional and new partners in all regions. To do so, we obviously need consensus building at the national level and setting goals transparently, which is underway.

While we will avoid confrontation and antagonism, at the same time, we will actively peruse our larger interests. As we are living in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, we believe that challenges could only be addressed through interaction and active cooperation among states. Global challenges require collective responses. No country by itself and in an isolated way would ever be able to effectively address the challenges it faces. Big powers are no exception to this rule as they increasingly find it difficult to address unilaterally the challenges they face either.

The rapid growth of developing and emerging economies and their ability to achieve what is called “catch-up growth” suggest that their aggregate economic weight is about to surpass that of the advanced world. Longer-term forecasts suggest that today’s developing and emerging countries are likely to account for nearly 60% of world GDP by 2030, up from around 40% in 2000, which would enable them to play a much greater role in global politics. Under such circumstances and while interdependence and competitive-cum-cooperative approach, and not enmity, is the order of the day, zero-sum-game and win-lose approach in international relations has already lost ground, as no country could pursue its interests at the expense of the others. Those who may still insist on adopting and advancing such an approach will end up imposing a lose-lose approach on themselves and others.

In such period of transition, Iran has actual and potential capabilities for enhancing its role in the world arena. Our values are increasingly taking roots. The recent election in Iran, in which close to 75 percent of the eligible voters turned out to vote, showed how what we call religious democracy is maturing. Iran's millennial culture and civilization, its exceptional Iranian state continuity rooted in millennial, its distinguished geopolitics, the characteristics that foster Iran's social stability in the midst of a region in turmoil as well as the pool of its well-educated youth, all in all, enable us to confidently look to the future and aspire to assume the major role in the global level that our people deserve; a role that no actor in global politics can ever ignore.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are also considering the aspects of rebuilding and improving our bilateral and multilateral relations with the countries of Europe and North America on the basis of mutual respect and equal footing. That would include working on easing off any tension, removing hurdles in the way and comprehensively developing relations, including economic ties.

We can begin by avoiding any new tension in Iran-US relationship and, at the same time, endeavor towards removing tensions that we inherited from the past; tensions that continue to mar the relations between our two countries. While we may not be able to forget the major source of mistrust and suspicion that haunted the minds of the Iranian people in their thinking about the US Governments in the past 60 years, we need however to focus rather on the current situation and look forward to the future, trying to turn the turbulent past into a beacon lighting the path ahead. As leaders, we need to rise above petty politics and lead rather than follow the various interest and pressure groups in our respective countries.

In our view, building on and cooperating about issues of interest and concern to both sides could also be another starting point, as it would be in the interest of easing off the ongoing tensions in our region as well. In so doing, we need to counter those interest groups, here in the US and there in the region, whose objective is to keep Iran issue boiling. They seek to further their goal of distracting international attention from issues directly involving themselves and precluding Iran from enhancing its status in the region and diminishing the chance for a negotiated agreement on the Iranian nuclear program and thus increase the chances of a continued Iran-US standoff.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The choice the Iranian people made in the recent election came at a time when our region is more than ever grappling with sectarianism, enmities among different groups and potential new breeding grounds and instigation for extremism and terrorism. At the same time, the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria could haunt the peoples in the region for many years to come. We believe that, under such circumstances, a voice of moderation emanating from the region would have a soothing effect and could impact the course of events in a constructive and positive way.

It is unfortunate that, as we speak, many countries in our region wrestle with domestic and/or international issues and challenges with grave repercussions for other regional and international actors. There is no doubt that they mostly consist of issues of interest and concern to many regional and global actors, who need to join force and make common efforts to address them. My country, as a major power in the region, is fully prepared to move in this direction and spare no effort to facilitate solutions to these issues, thus contributing to the maintenance of international and regional peace and stability. Under these circumstances, we consider the efforts by certain capitals aimed at portraying Iran as a threat and undermining Iran's credibility in the region and in the world are counterproductive and they should cease in the interest of peace and tranquility in the region and beyond.

I am profoundly disturbed over the spawning humanitarian tragedy in Syria and the enormous suffering that the Syrian people have incurred over the past two years and a half. Representing a people who experienced the horror of chemical weapons, my Government strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict. I am also concerned about the breeding grounds created in parts of Syrian territory for extremist ideologies and rallying point for terrorists, which is reminiscent of the situation in another region adjacent to our eastern borders in the 1990s. This is an issue of concern, not only to us but also to many other countries, which requires cooperation and joint efforts aimed at finding a durable intro-Syrian political solution.

At the same time, we are pleased that diplomacy finally could have its way with regard to at least one aspect of Syrian crisis and sober judgment prevailed over saber rattling. We need to build on the partial headway that was made and try to reach an understanding on the fact that Syria is now a place in dire need of coordinated regional and international efforts. We are ready to contribute to peace and stability in Syria in the course of any serious negotiations among regional and extra-regional parties. Here too as in everywhere else, we need to avoid embroiling in a zero-sum game.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to conclude by briefly touching upon the Iranian peaceful nuclear energy program, which has been subject to enormous hype over the past several decades. You know that how many predictions regarding how close Iran was to acquire a nuclear bomb proved to be baseless. We can trace these predictions back to early 1990s. Throughout this period, alarmists kept trying to paint the face of Iran as a threatening one to its region and the whole world; a claim that have always turned out to be utterly false. And we all know also who the chief agitator is and what purposes are to be served by hyping this issue. We know also that this claim fluctuates in proportion to the size of the international pressure to stop the settlement activity and end the occupation of the Palestinian lands. These false alarming bells are oblivious, among other things, to the fact that the US national intelligence estimates maintained that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

We are committed not to work towards developing and producing nuclear bomb. As enunciated in the fatwa issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, we strongly believe that the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are contrary to the Islamic norms. I also should reiterate that, in our view, we never contemplated the option of acquiring nuclear weapon. We believe that such weapons could undermine our national security interest, and as such, they have no place in Iran’s security doctrine and even the perception that Iran may pursue a nuclear weapons program is detrimental to our security and overall interest.

During my presidential campaign, I committed myself to do whatever in my power to fast track a solution for the standoff over the Iranian nuclear energy program. To fulfill this commitment and benefit from the window of opportunity that the recent election opened up, my Government is prepared to leave no stone unturned in seeking for a mutually acceptable solution. To this end, we are ready to work with 5+1, its members and others with a view to ensuring full transparency surrounding our nuclear program.

The peaceful nuclear capability that we have achieved is bound to be exercised within a transparent, internationally recognized framework, accessible to the IAEA, under its safeguards mechanisms and international monitoring, as has been the case in the past several years. We believe that it is in this appropriate and lawful way that the international community can ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program. In such framework, we are also ready to work towards removing any ambiguity and answer any reasonable question about Iran's nuclear energy program. Having done so, let me reiterate that we will never forgo our inherent right to benefit from nuclear energy under any circumstances.

The continuation of pressure, arms twisting, intimidation and extra territorially imposed measures directed against the Iranian people and innocent civilians, trying to prevent them from having access to a whole range of necessities from technology to medicine, from science to food stuff could only poison the atmosphere and undermine the conditions necessary for making progress and weaken our resolve.

With the above elements in mind, we are fully prepared to seriously engage in the process towards a negotiated and mutually agreeable settlement and do so in good faith and with a business-like mind. We hope that our counterparts, too, benefit from this window of opportunity and are as much serious and ready to come along with an open mind and predicated on concrete and objective norms and criteria.

While thanking you ladies and gentlemen for listening to my remarks, I now look forward to listening to your comments and taking your questions.

Rouhani, Obama hold telephone conversation

Rouhani, Obama hold telephone conversation
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/27/326408/rouhani-obama-speak-on-phone/
Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:53PM GMT

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart Barack Obama have held a telephone conversation as the Iranian president was wrapping up his visit to New York for the 68th annual session of the UN General Assembly.

Rouhani received the call from Obama on Friday as he was in a car heading to the John F. Kennedy International Airport to fly back to Tehran, IRNA reported.

The two heads of state stressed Tehran and Washington’s political will to swiftly resolve the West’s dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program, and exchanged viewpoints on various topics, including cooperation on different regional issues.

During the telephone conversation, Rouhani and Obama also assigned Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry to quickly set the stage for cooperation between the two counties.

The phone conversation is the first direct communication between the Iranian and US presidents since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979.

It came following a Thursday meeting between Iran and the six major world powers in New York over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

Kerry called the talks as “constructive," saying, "We've agreed to try to continue a process that would try to make concrete and find a way to answer the questions that people have about Iran's nuclear program."

Zarif also praised the talks as "very good and substantive" and said the result would have to include "a total lifting" of all sanctions against Iran.

“We hope to be able to make progress to solve this issue in a timely fashion [and] to make sure [there is] no concern that Iran's program is anything but peaceful," the Iranian foreign minister added.

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that the Iranian nuclear program has been diverted toward military objectives.

MP/AB/MHB

Iranian, US presidents talk over phone

Iranian, US presidents talk over phone
http://www.president.ir/en/71991
news id: 71991 - Friday 27 September 2013 - 23:33
The two presidents talked over the phone as President Rohani was in a car and heading towards the New York International Airport.


President Rohani and President Obama discussed different issues during their phone conversation.

The Iranian and US presidents underlined the need for a political will for expediting resolution of West’s standoff with Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.

President Rohani and President Obama stressed the necessity for mutual cooperation on different regional issues.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his American counterpart John Kerry have been commissioned to follow up talks between the two countries.

Dr. Rouhani meets with UN Secretary General

Dr. Rouhani meets with UN Secretary General
http://www.president.ir/en/71985
news id: 71985 - Friday 27 September 2013 - 18:27
President Hassan Rouhani and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have met and exchanged views on different regional and international issues, specially the Syrian crisis on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York.


During the meeting held on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday, Dr.Rouhani and Ban discussed the status quo of Syria and also the use of the chemical weapons in the Muslim country.

Ban also briefed the Iranian president on the developments regarding the upcoming international Geneva II conference on the Syrian crisis.

They also weighed in on climate change, human rights and a host of regional issues.

Statement by H.E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani President of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament

Statement by H.E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani President of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament
http://iran-un.org/en/2013/09/26/26-september-2013/
(New York, 26 September 2013)

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a special privilege to address this historic gathering. The participation of many world leaders in this first ever meeting of the Assembly on nuclear disarmament is indeed a clear manifestation of the wide support for this important subject. On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement that initiated this meeting, I thank you all for your support.

I am also very grateful to you Mr. President, for your efforts and those of your predecessor in organizing this meeting. I also thank you, Mr. Secretary General, for your remarks.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

A peaceful and secure world remains a shared ideal for us all.

The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deepened our resolve to prevent the recurrence of such unspeakable death and destruction.

To that end, the very first resolution of this Assembly rightfully called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons. We have now an architecture of treaties, norms, and forums that aims to achieve this agreed goal. Yet, thousands of these weapons continue to pose the greatest threat to peace.

Steps for de-targeting, de-alerting or reducing the number of nuclear weapons are not a substitute for their total elimination.

Any use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the UN Charter and a crime against humanity. Doctrines justifying such use are unacceptable. Likewise, threatening non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons should be ended. Modernization of these weapons also undercuts efforts for their total abolition. These should therefore be stopped.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to recognize the important contribution of some non-nuclear-weapon States to nuclear disarmament by voluntarily renouncing or dismantling nuclear weapons.

I also recognize the valuable contribution of nuclear-weapon-free zones to nuclear disarmament and international peace and security. I commend the seminal role of non-nuclear-weapon States, particularly NAM States, which make up the bulk of these zones.

The Movement calls upon all Nuclear-Weapon States to ratify related protocols to all treaties establishing such zones, withdraw any reservations or interpretative declarations incompatible with their object and purpose, and respect the de-nuclearization status of these zones.

NAM urges the early signing and ratification by the Nuclear-Weapon States of the Protocol to the Treaty on Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and its related documents without reservations.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Almost four decades of international efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East have regrettably failed. Urgent practical steps towards the establishment of such a zone are necessary. Israel, the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in this region, should join thereto without any further delay. Accordingly, all nuclear activities in the region should be subject to the IAEA comprehensive safeguards.

The international community has to re-double its efforts in support of the establishment of this zone. This would constitute a contribution to the objective of nuclear disarmament. In this regard, I reaffirm that the NAM State Parties to the NPT urge the convening of the Conference on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, without any further delay, with the participation of all countries in the region to avoid unwanted consequences.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The World has waited too long for nuclear disarmament. The indefinite possession of nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated nor can their complete elimination be further delayed. Nuclear-weapon States have the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament. I strongly urge them to comply with this long overdue legal obligation.

Fulfillment of nuclear disarmament obligations must not be delayed any further or held hostage to progress on non-proliferation or the perceived notions of strategic stability.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing. They should be pursued simultaneously, not one at the cost of the other. Non-proliferation derives its legitimacy from the larger objective of nuclear disarmament. It should be implemented in a comprehensive and non-discriminatory manner.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use, threat of use and proliferation persist. The only absolute guarantee is their total elimination. Pending that day, nuclear-weapon States should refrain from any threat or use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State under any circumstances. The current declarations on negative security assurances are inadequate. They must be codified into a universal legal instrument.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nuclear disarmament remains our highest priority. To take forward the nuclear disarmament agenda, the Movement proposes the following roadmap:

First, early commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons for the prohibition of their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and for their destruction.

Second, designation of 26 September every year as an international day to renew our resolve to completely eliminate nuclear weapons. We invite all governments and civil society, academia, and media to join hands in making this vision a reality.

Third, convening a High-level International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in five years to review progress in this regard.

The Movement will present a resolution to this Assembly regarding this roadmap. I trust that it will enjoy your support.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

No nation should possess nuclear weapons; since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons, as you, Mr. Secretary General have rightly put it.

NAM is determined to make every effort to realize the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world without further delay. Instead of nuclear weapons, let us invest in development and in eradicating poverty, ignorance, and diseases.

Let us bestow upon future generations a nuclear-weapon-free world. This is their right and our responsibility. Let us prove that we are the United Nations: nations united for peace.

I thank you Mr. President.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Presidente al-Assad al canal “Telesur”: los sirios están mas aferrados que nunca a la defensa de su patria... la política de EE.UU. se basa en mentiras

Presidente al-Assad al canal “Telesur”: los sirios están mas aferrados que nunca a la defensa de su patria... la política de EE.UU. se basa en mentiras
http://sana.sy/spa/212/2013/09/26/504401.htm
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/09/videotexto-completo-de-la-entrevista.html
Sep 26, 2013


Damasco, SANA

El presidente Bashar al- Assad, afirmó en una entrevista con el canal Telesur de América Latina, que los sirios están ahora más aferrados que nunca a la defensa de su patria, y que los atentados terroristas lejos de llevarles a una completa desesperación, han traído resultados inversos.

En la entrevista, el presidente al-Assad dijo que la mayoría de las declaraciones de los funcionarios estadounidenses no tienen ni el mínimo de credibilidad, y que la política estadounidense se ha basado en mentiras…

Al Assad agregó que Siria está comprometida con todos los acuerdos que ha firmado y esto es conocido de Siria desde hace décadas, denunciando que todas las alegaciones de Estados Unidos son puros disparates y no tienen fundamento alguno real o lógico.

Asimismo subrayó que el mundo será mejor cuando Estados Unidos abandone las interferencias en los asuntos de los demás países.

A continuación, el texto completo de la entrevista del presidente al-Assad con Telesur.

Telesur: Presidente, gracias por concedernos la oportunidad de realizar esta entrevista para conocer sus posturas e ideas y transmitirlas a toda América Latina… bienvenido…

Presidente al-Assad:

Quiero darte a ti y al Canal Telesur la bienvenida a Siria. Te felicito por haberte recuperado de la herida en la pierna… Creo que mi encuentro hoy con un periodista que ha sufrido en carne propia las consecuencias del terrorismo, será un encuentro realista y enriquecedor… otra vez, te doy la bienvenida como un periodista cuya sangre se mezcló con la sangre de los mártires del Ejército Árabe Sirio.

Primera Pregunta: Gracias… la verdad es que hay muchas cosas en común entre nosotros, entre ellas nuestra sangre… Ud. ha mencionado el terrorismo… precisamente ayer estalló un carro bomba en Damasco y causó la caída de numerosas víctimas… ¿cuál es el mensaje que los terroristas quieren transmitir, particularmente en las circunstancias por las que está atravesando Siria y el mundo? ¿cómo miran las actuales circunstancias para enfrentar el terrorismo en Siria?

Presidente al-Assad:

Estos terroristas expresan un solo mensaje que consiste en la ideología oscurantista que portan… para ellos, cualquiera que no piense como ellos es una persona que no merece vivir. De vez en cuando, perpetran estos atentados para obligar a los ciudadanos a acercarse a ellos o con el fin de llevarles a la desesperación. Quieren que la gente pierda toda esperanza en la vida, pues cuando se pierde la esperanza en la vida ya la gente se acerca a ellos de una y otra manera. este es uno de los aspecto, pero hay también atentados terroristas que son financiados, incitados y planificados desde el exterior para que la desesperación se apodere de los sirios y sientan que no hay ninguna esperanza en la patria, y que la Siria tal cual fue conocida a lo largo de los siglos, ya no existe…. Ya que la decepción es la que lleva a la gente a la derrota y la impulsa a abandonar la defensa de su país… Lo que viste ayer es uno de cientos de intentos que tuvieron lugar en este mismo marco, pero siempre han dado efectos inversos, pues los sirios están ahora más decididos que nunca a defender su patria…

Segunda pregunta: Sr. Presidente… Escuchamos ayer al presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, hablando en su discurso sobre lo que realizó la administración estadounidense en diferentes partes del mundo, y habló especialmente sobre la situación en Siria… el tema de Siria ha sido un tema fundamental en las Naciones Unidas… El presidente Barack Obama dijo de una manera u otra, que está de acuerdo con la necesidad de una solución política a la crisis en Siria, sin embargo, pide a las Naciones Unidas o al Consejo de Seguridad que emita una resolución fuerte contra Siria y su gobierno si no complementa lo que ha sido acordado sobre las armas químicas, a pesar de que también afirmó que para Estados Unidos, su gobierno fue el que usó armas químicas contra los ciudadanos…

Presidente al-Assad:

Respecto al discurso del Sr. Obama ayer, pues fue tal como sus anteriores discursos, llenos de alegaciones que se basan en falsificaciones y mentiras; pero en forma general, la mayoría de las declaraciones de los responsables estadounidense en todas las administraciones, la actual o en las anteriores administraciones, son declaraciones que no tienen ni el mínimo de credibilidad... Por eso, no es importante comentar sobre sus declaraciones, y en general son declaraciones repetidas y similares… Desde el inicio de la crisis en Siria, la política estadounidense se basó en mentiras, ellos lo saben, o quizás no, pero creo que sí sabían de todas las mentiras, pero esas alegaciones y mentiras se intensificaron y la actual administración contribuyó directamente en la falsificación después de haber planteado el tema del uso de las armas químicas el 21 de agosto pasado, y esa administración no presentó ninguna evidencia sobre sus alegaciones, lo que significa que mentía al pueblo estadounidense… Cuando no lograron convencer al pueblo estadounidense con sus alegaciones, ya no podían echarse atrás y pasaron a fabricar más mentiras. Nosotros les habíamos retado desde los primero días para que presenten evidencias sobre este tema… En cuanto a su mención del párrafo VII, en Siria ya no nos preocupa, en primer lugar, porque Siria se compromete con todos los acuerdos que firma y eso se conoce de Siria desde hace décadas, quizás desde la independencia. En segundo lugar, porque ahora hay más equilibrio en el Consejo de Seguridad y eso no permite a EE.UU usar, como lo hacía antes, al Consejo de seguridad como instrumento para llevar a cabo sus propias agendas para el cambio de regímenes y la destrucción de Estados como lo hacía en los años noventa; y es por ello, digo, que todas las alegaciones norteamericanas no son más que disparates y no tienen ningún fundamento real o lógico…

Tercera pregunta: Permítanos hablar del discurso del presidente Obama, se percibe que fue desorientado, no sabe lo que quiere… a veces habla del uso de la fuerza y otras de la solución pacifica, Asimismo aludió a que la agresión israelí contra Siria fue para proteger los intereses estadounidenses en la región… ¿Cuáles son esos intereses? ¿qué quiso decir Obama acerca de Siria? En cuanto a lo que está ocurriendo en el CSI respecto de Siria, ¿acaso se descarta que los EE.UU. lleve a cabo una ofensiva contra Siria?

Presidente al-Assad:

En primer lugar, las contradicciones que usted ha mencionado están en todos los discursos y en todas las declaraciones de los funcionarios estadounidenses, bien sea el presidente, el secretario de Estado u otros que emiten declaraciones. Por ejemplo, dicen que Siria no posee las posibilidades que podrían preocupar al ejército estadounidense en caso de decidir llevar a cabo una intervención militar o una ofensiva militar, y al mismo tiempo, dicen que Siria amenaza la seguridad nacional de EE.UU.. Este es solo un ejemplo de los muchos que hay en este marco.

En cuanto a la posibilidad de que EE.UU. lance un ataque contra Siria, si echamos un vistazo a las anteriores guerras y las políticas de EE.UU., por lo menos a partir de la primera mitad de los años cincuenta, vemos que es una política que va de una agresión a otra, empezando por Corea, y luego Vietnam, Líbano, Somalia, Afganistán e Irak, … esa es la política de Estados Unidos, eso sin mencionar lo que hizo en Suramérica donde instigó a los golpes de estado y a la muerte de millones … decenas de gobiernos fueron derrocados a consecuencia de las políticas de Estados Unidos. Esa es la misma política que vemos ahora y la que existe desde hace décadas, no ha cambiado y no veo ahora una razón primordial para que cambie, por lo menos mediante nuestra apreciación a la situación interna en los EE.UU. … eso significa que las posibilidades para una ofensiva siempre estarán presentes, en un momento bajo el pretexto de las armas químicas, y en otras veces por pretextos diferentes… lo importante es que desde hace décadas Estados Unidos esta traspasando el Consejo de Seguridad, violando la Carta de la ONU y la soberanía de los Estados, violando todas las normas humanitarias y morales. Quizá debamos tener en cuenta esa posibilidad en cada lugar del mundo, y es lo que hacemos en Siria.. nos preguntamos si hay una posibilidad de que ocurra una ofensiva?, puede que no en estos momentos, pero nadie sabe cuándo esa posibilidad podría convertirse en realidad… siempre habrá esa posibilidad y no deberíamos descartarla.

Cuarta pregunta: ¿Cuáles son los intereses de los EE.UU. en la región? Usa la fuerza para defender sus intereses….

Presidente al-Assad:

Respecto de la parte concerniente a los intereses de EE.UU., pienso que lo que ha hecho Estados Unidos a lo largo de las pasadas décadas y sus injerencias contradicen completamente sus intereses. EEUU es una gran potencia, tiene intereses políticos, económicos, militares y otros. Esos intereses pueden lograrse mediante el respeto recíproco, mediante las buenas relaciones, mediante la confianza, la credibilidad, y la promoción y divulgación de las ciencias y del conocimiento que goza Estados Unidos, en vez de difundir terrorismo, destrucción y miedo. No hay duda de que en su calidad de gran potencia, EE.UU. tiene intereses en todo el mundo, pero esos intereses deberían partir, en primer lugar, de la estabilidad en el mundo… no se puede tener ningún tipo de intereses en un lugar inestable, donde hay guerras y terrorismo. Sí, EE.UU tiene intereses, pero sus políticas, y todo lo que hace, contradice esos intereses y los intereses del pueblo estadounidense.

Quinta pregunta: Como lo ha dicho Ud., ese discurso impreciso del presidente Obama y esas contradicciones tan obvias del imperio norteamericano… ayer habló de una solución pacífica y política de la crisis en Siria, no obstante, dejó las puertas abiertas ante dos opciones: que usted no debería permanecer en el poder. Obama dijo literalmente que ya es hora de que Rusia y China comprendan que la permanencia del presidente Al Assad en el poder ampliaría el ámbito ante los grupos extremistas para que aumenten sus actividades. Qué piensa acerca de eso? Acaso considera posible su abandono del poder?

Presidente al-Assad:

La primera parte representa otro ejemplo de la contradicción norteamericana. Dicen que buscan la paz y buscan la guerra con respecto del mismo asunto y el mismo mapa de ruta para resolver un problema cualquiera. Esa lógica significa promover la violencia en el mundo. Es decir, legitimar la violencia como vía y como estilo para alcanzar una solución política… eso contradice la lógica… No pueden converger la violencia y la acción política. La violencia derrumba cualquier oportunidad para una acción política. Nosotros rechazamos esa lógica que está intentando promover Estados Unidos últimamente para justificar una agresión contra Siria. En cuanto al tema de la renuncia al poder, ese asunto lo han venido planteado los funcionarios estadounidenses o algunos de sus aliados europeos desde hace más de un año. En lo que a nosotros respecta, ese asunto no nos incumbe por una razón muy simple, y es que desde hace mas de cinco décadas, Estados Unidos no ha derrocado en Siria a un presidente o asignado un responsable. Siria es independiente desde hace generaciones…. Por esta razón, Estados Unidos no puede venir ahora a creerse capaz de poder determinarle al pueblo sirio quien vendrá y quien saldrá del poder. Ese asunto es 100 por 100 voluntad del pueblo sirio. Inclusive los países amigos no tienen un rol en este asunto. Eso depende de la voluntad del pueblo sirio y exclusivamente de las urnas. Cuando se celebren las elecciones, el pueblo sirio decidirá a quién quiere y a quién no. Ese asunto está decidido. Si el pueblo sirio no te quiere debes irte inmediatamente y viceversa. Estados Unidos no tiene absolutamente nada que ver en este asunto, igual hable de eso o haga lo que haga. Por esa razón, desde el principio, hacemos caso omiso a todo lo que dicen al respecto.

6ª PREGUNTA: Terminemos este asunto sobre Obama… él dijo una frase que quedará para la historia, dijo que “el mundo hoy esta mejor gracias a EE.UU.”… ¿piensa realmente Ud. que el mundo está mejor gracias a EE.UU.?

Presidente al-Assad:

Hablemos realidades… ¿acaso Irak está mejor con la presencia estadounidense?.. ¿Acaso Afganistán está mejor? ¿la situación en Libia ….en Túnez o en Siria? ¿cuáles lugares están mejor? ¿Acaso Vietnam estaba mejor cuando los estadounidenses intervenían en sus asuntos, o cuando le permitieron independizarse y auto desarrollarse? Esta situación se da también donde ustedes en América del Sur.. ¿están mejor ahora o acaso lo estaban más cuando interfería EE.UU.? La verdad creo que el mundo está mejor cuando EE.UU. deja de inmiscuirse… nosotros no queremos que ayude a nadie… Él (Obama) decía ayer “nosotros no podemos solucionar los problemas de todo el mundo"… yo digo que sería mejor que EE.UU. no intente solucionar los problemas del mundo… en cada lugar donde intentaron hacer algo empeoraron la situación, lo que queremos de EE.UU. es que no interfiera en los asuntos de los países del mundo y entonces el mundo será mejor seguramente… ahora si pretenden que la proliferación del terrorismo es lo mejor, entonces esto corrobora lo que dicen algunos norteamericanos en los medios y la prensa de que la política de Obama se basa en dar apoyo al terrorismo y el extremismo… si eso es verdad, entonces lo que dice él es cierto, o sea, el mundo está mejor porque el terrorismo se extiende por todo el mundo…

7ª pregunta: Ud. ve alguna novedad en la posición de Obama respecto del presidente Rohani, al señalar que el presidente Rohani dijo que no hay solución militar a la crisis en Siria, y que las armas químicas han llegado a los grupos armados que combaten en Siria por delegación de los países occidentales… ¿cómo ve la postura del presidente Rohani que llama a cesar la financiación y el rearme de la oposición? ¿Cómo ve esta postura de Irán y del presidente iraní?

Presidente al-Assad:

la posición iraní es muy objetiva hacia la crisis siria porque conoce lo que realmente está ocurriendo en Siria, y al mismo tiempo está consciente de que esta región es una sola, y por consiguiente si hay fuego ardiendo en Siria entonces lo más seguro es que este fuego se propague a los países vecinos y más tarde a los países más lejanos de Siria inclusive Irán. Así pues, Irán parte en su política desde esta premisa y parte también de otra premisa que dice que el pueblo sirio tiene derecho a solucionar sus problemas. En cuanto a los comentarios de los norteamericanos sobre la posición iraní, pues primero, como dije hace poco, que el americano, si declara negativa o positivamente, nadie le cree tanto si alaba o critica, si repudia o reprende. Y al mismo tiempo, el iraní no es tan ingenuo como para dejarse engañar por la postura estadounidense, pues Irán tiene experiencia como la experiencia siria con las sucesivas administraciones estadounidenses, por lo menos desde el inicio de la Revolución Islámica de Irán. Por tanto lo que nos importa a nosotros de este asunto no es el comentario estadounidense, lo que nos interesa es la esencia de la política iraní hacia siria, y afirmo otra vez que esta es una esencia objetiva y con sus planteamientos logra la estabilidad en nuestra región.

8ª pregunta: verdaderamente en la declaración iraní en la ONU hubo una propuesta sobre las relaciones entre Irán y EE.UU. de que habrá una reunión entre el presidente iraní y el gobierno estadounidense … estas reuniones no sucedían hace mucho tiempo.. ¿Cómo ve este acercamiento? Acaso es un proceso de acercamiento real de EE.UU. hacia Irán? O sería un método para alejar los amigos de Siria? O si esto denota que a EE.UU. no le queda más remedio que negociar para proteger sus intereses y no el uso de la fuerza?

Presidente al-Assad:

Primero los más cercanos amigos de EE.UU. no confían en él lamentablemente, por tanto, con toda seguridad el acercamiento irano-estadounidense no significa que Irán confíe en EE.UU.. Nosotros tenemos una relación con EE.UU. que pasó por diferentes etapas de altibajos, pero la confianza no existió en ninguna de las etapas. Aunque en el trabajo político uno necesita experimentar todos los instrumentos y tocar todas las puertas para aliviar la tensión en el mundo, pues la comunicación y el diálogo son necesarios en la naturaleza de la acción política de los países.

Creemos que la el acercamiento de Irán con EEUU, tanto por el expediente nuclear iraní o por cualquier otro expediente, es algo positivo que sirve a la región si existiese un verdadero y sincero deseo por parte de EEUU de establecer un respeto mutuo con Irán y no inmiscuirse en sus asuntos internos, ni tampoco obstruir su empeño por obtener la tecnología nuclear. Esto por una parte, por la otra, no creo que EEUU haya abandonado el principio de recurrir a la fuerza militar, yo veo lo contrario, cuando EEUU. vio que tiene rivales en el concierto internacional o incluso socios de grandes potencias emergentes, prefirió retractarse de este principio de usar la fuerza, a pesar de que esta administración, cuando fue elegida, se basaba en el rechazo a la doctrina de Bush en cuanto al uso de la fuerza, y ahora vuelve a la misma doctrina. Creo que ellos intentan hacer una asimilación del rol iraní tal como sucedió con Siria hace algunos años, pero los iraníes son conscientes de este juego.

9ª pregunta: Cuáles son las garantías verdaderas de vuestro gobierno sobre la lista de las armas químicas que han presentado, de que estas son verdaderamente las armas que poseen…. Cuales son las garantías que darán a los inspectores de las Naciones Unidas para que lleven a cabo su labor y pongan las armas químicas bajo control internacional?

Presidente al-Assad:

Nuestra relación en este asunto será con la Organización de Prohibición de las Armas Químicas, y no se le pide de Siria que presente garantías al mundo o a dicha organización, sino se le pide tratar con mecanismos específicos o comprometernos a mecanismos específicos estipulados en la convención sobre las armas químicas. Como dije anteriormente, Siria cumple los acuerdos que suscribe. Siria últimamente ha comenzado a entregar los datos necesarios a esta organización y en poco tiempo los expertos de la misma comenzarán a llegar a Siria para conocer la realidad de estas armas, entonces para nosotros como gobierno, no existen obstáculos reales, nosotros siempre tomamos en consideración la probabilidad de que los terroristas procedan a obstaculizar la llegada de los inspectores a las zonas definidas, ya sea por razones personales de aquellos terroristas o grupos terroristas o impulsados por los Estados que los patrocinan y financian con el fin de inculpar al gobierno sirio y acusarlo de falta de cooperación con los inspectores de esta organización, y esta es la probabilidad mas grande. Mientras que para nosotros como gobierno, no existe ningún problema que pueda impedir que concordemos con los mecanismos planteados en estos acuerdos.

10ª Pregunta: Vuelven hoy los inspectores internacionales a Damasco para determinar la posibilidad en la inspección de otros lugares donde se alega el uso de armas químicas, ¿qué garantías darán a los inspectores para que efectúen su trabajo de manera libre e independiente?

Presidente al-Assad:

En cuanto a la misión de expertos que mencionas, nosotros hemos solicitado que venga al país en el pasado mes de marzo cuando los terroristas usaron gases tóxicos en una de las jurisdicciones al norte de Alepo. Esta misión no vino ni por iniciativa de Naciones Unidas o de cualquier otro Estado, y quien obstaculizó su llegada al país, fue Estados Unidos. En realidad nosotros la hemos invitado y tenemos interés en que venga para que revele la realidad del uso de las armas químicas en Siria. Entonces es ilógico que vayamos a invitarla y luego obstaculicemos su labor, y es más, en cuanto a la misión de expertos que abandonó Siria hace pocas semanas, nosotros queríamos que siguiera investigando las zonas donde supuestamente se utilizaron las armas químicas, pero la insistencia de Estados Unidos en su retorno antes de cumplir su tarea, es lo que le impulsó a abandonar el país y ahora volverá y seguramente el gobierno sirio respaldará el cumplimiento de su labor y no existen obstáculos que no sean los que ya he mencionado de que los terroristas vayan a interceptar la misión, especialmente en las zonas donde existe un amplio despliegue de los terroristas.

11ª pregunta: A pesar de las acusaciones de que el Gobierno sirio es el que usó las armas químicas, Rusia y su gobierno ofrecieron evidencias de que los grupos armados son los que usaron esas armas… ¿cuáles son las evidencias que tienen? ¿Qué harán los gobiernos de Siria y Rusia para confirmar que no fue el gobierno sirio el que utilizó el arma químico sino los grupos armados?

Presidente al-Assad:

Seguramente poseemos pruebas y contamos con indicios. En cuanto a las pruebas o evidencias, pues cuando se utilizaron los gases tóxicos en Jan Al-Assal (al norte de Alepo), recogimos muestras de la tierra y de la sangre de las víctimas, así como de los restos de los obuses utilizados en el transporte de las sustancias toxicas a dicha zona y también los misiles, y luego mediante las operaciones del ejército, fueron descubiertos varios escondites donde tenían depósitos de diferentes tamaños con sustancias químicas y en algunos casos materiales y herramientas que se utilizaban para su elaboración. Hemos presentado estas pruebas al gobierno ruso, concretamente antes de la llegada de la misión de Naciones Unidas a Siria. También tenemos las confesiones de los terroristas que habían trasladado algunas sustancias químicas de países vecinos hacia Siria y dichas confesiones fueron publicadas en la televisora siria hace una semana aproximadamente. El gobierno sirio no ha utilizado estas armas.

12ª pregunta: ¿en este aspecto cuál es el papel que jugaron Arabia Saudita y Qatar para hacer llegar estas armas químicas a los grupos armados?

Presidente al-Assad:

Para serte exacto, no tenemos una prueba que confirme que esos países trasladaron armas químicas a estos grupos, pero es conocido que ellos brindaron apoyo a los terroristas desde el principio de la crisis en Siria. Les trasladaron todo tipo de armas sofisticadas sin excepción, y esto está confirmado y documentado . Cuando esos países apoyan de forma declarada a estos grupos con todo tipo de armas entonces es natural que se le apunte con el dedo acusador , especialmente Arabia Saudita, y es creíble que puedan transportar ese tipo de sustancias a los terroristas para su uso contra el ejército sirio, especialmente que estos grupos terroristas fracasaron en dar a sus amos en el exterior cualquier logro sobre el terreno, en términos militares. Desde luego, ellos han logrado destruir mucho en Siria; destruyeron la infraestructura, afectaron la economía, afectaron de forma muy negativa la vida de los ciudadanos. Sin duda tenemos mucho sufrimiento a causa de estos grupos terroristas, pero cuando hablo en el sentido militar o sea que obtengan un logro militar grande y materialicen los objetivos militares diseñados para ellos pues afirmamos que en este aspecto han fracasado rotundamente y por eso recurrieron al uso de una nueva arma con vistas a derrotar al ejército sirio o invocar políticamente la intervención extranjera, o sea que EEUU y sus aliados ataquen a Siria y debiliten al ejército sirio, y claro está, esa es la probabilidad mas grande.

13ª pregunta: Hay un tablero de ajedrez por debajo de la mesa. En público, hay acuerdos por debajo de la mesa… y hay quien mueve las piedras debajo de la mesa y ese es Israel… ¿tiene Israel un rol en todo lo que está sucediendo e Siria? ¿Y por qué hablan de las armas químicas en Siria y del arma nuclear de Irán y no hablan de las armas nucleares de Israel?

Presidente al-Assad:

Israel es un estado agresivo. Israel fue creado sobre una base expansionista… ocupa las tierras de los demás y asesina a los pueblos que la rodean; obviamente ha matado a muchos palestinos durantemás de seis décadas… mató a muchos libaneses… a muchos egipcios, sirios y otros por medio de asesinados y atentados terroristas, y hoy desempeña el mismo rol dando apoyo a los terroristas de forma directa en las zonas fronterizas colindantes del Frente sirio… o sea hacia el Golán ocupado donde presta apoyo logístico, médico y de inteligencia, y también armamento y municiones a los terroristas.

14ª pregunta: también hay informaciones que dicen que Israel tiene intereses petroleros en algunas zonas sirias?

Presidente al-Assad:

esto se planteó en torno al petróleo en la costa oriental del mar Mediterráneo. pero son meros análisis porque no tenemos informaciones sobre este punto.

En relación a la existencia del arma nuclear israelí y como había Ud. dicho, nadie habla de ese asunto porque Israel, ese Estado agresivo, ese Estado paria, obtiene una absoluta cobertura por parte de EEUU y en todas sus políticas … Es una cobertura de sus crímenes… hay cobertura dentro de EEUU y en el Consejo de Seguridad y en los organismos internacionales entre ellos la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica , por tanto es de esperar que en este caso cualquier arma en el mundo sea objeto de cuestionamiento, pero el arma israelí no es objeto de discusión … esta es la lógica reinante en el mundo, la lógica de la hegemonía, la lógica del colonialismo, la lógica del más fuerte…

15ª pregunta: Sr. Presidente, existen intentos a nivel mundial de alcanzar una solución política a la crisis, ¿cómo trabajan o intentan dentro de Siria aliviar la tensión? ¿existen intentos de acercamiento entre ustedes y los diferentes partidos en Siria?, ¿podemos hablar de la esperanza de alcanzar una solución interna y llegar a la Conferencia de Ginebra?

Presidente al-Assad:

Aunque se intensifiquen los atentados terroristas y se empeore la situación, hay que continuar los intentos de lanzar la acción política en cuanto a cualquier problema. Nosotros hemos creído en eso desde el principio, a pesar de la reciente escalada de actos terroristas. La acción política requiere primero de la detención del terrorismo y del flujo de terroristas desde los países vecinos, así como poner fin al apoyo a esos terroristas, sea logísticamente o con dinero y armas. Al mismo tiempo, es inevitable la celebración de un diálogo entre todas las partes sirias sobre el futuro de Siria, y este diálogo empieza en primer lugar sobre el sistema político en el país, es decir, el sistema político que quieren los sirios y las reglas, leyes y otras cosas que surjan de ese sistema. Cuando los sirios acuerden una determinada opinión en la mesa, se pueden plantear las cosas acordadas al pueblo sirio para las aprueben a través de un referéndum popular. En la actualidad, la Conferencia de Ginebra es uno de los importantes ejes políticos porque logra una oportunidad de diálogo entre los diferentes componentes sirios. Por supuesto, nosotros aquí no suponemos la presencia de terroristas que perpetraron actos de genocidio y creemos que en el diálogo no deben haber partes que llamaron a la intervención extranjera, pues de conformidad con la ley y el sentimiento popular sirio, cualquiera que llame a una intervención extranjera es un traidor y nadie lo acepta, pero nosotros hablamos del principio de la conferencia de Ginebra… la Conferencia de Ginebra es un paso necesario e importante hacia la apertura de un camino al diálogo entre los componentes sirios, pero la Conferencia de Ginebra no es un sustituto del diálogo interno en Siria y tampoco sustituye a la opinión del pueblo sirio, que lo decide todo a través de un referéndum… estas son las líneas generales de nuestra visión de acción política para solucionar la crisis en Siria, pero todos esos ejes no lograrán ningún resultado práctico si no se detienen el apoyo al terrorismo sobre el terreno.

16ª pregunta: Sr. Presidente, afirmó usted que no negociarán con los armados y los terroristas en Ginebra… ¿cuáles son las partes con quienes dialogarán en Ginebra? ¿cómo se puede materializar este diálogo sirio a nivel mundial? ¿cuál es el tiempo necesario para llegar a una solución política a la crisis en Siria?

Presidente Al-Assad:

Yo le puedo dar respuesta a una parte de este asunto y es la parte concerniente a los partidos existentes dentro de Siria y que pertenecen al pueblo sirio… diferentes partes… ya sea de la oposición o intermedios o partidarios del Estado; existen muchas partes, pero en cuanto a las demás partes en el extranjero, debemos dirigir la pregunta a sus patrocinadores, pues estos países (Estados Unidos, Francia, Reino Unido, Arabia Saudita, Qatar y otros) quizás sean los que han creado a aquellas personas y ellas no pertenecen al pueblo sirio, entonces si ellos les dicen que vayan a Ginebra ellas van y si les dicen digan tal cosa la dirán. Entonces si queremos conocer la respuesta a esta parte de la pregunta debemos preguntar a estos países si enviarán o no a estas personas, ya que ellas no representan al pueblo sirio; el pueblo sirio no las enviará y tampoco el gobierno sirio. Por ello, digo que el diálogo es con la oposición que se encuentra en Siria y las demás corrientes que no necesariamente sean opositoras.

Pregunta 17: No puedo finalizar este encuentros sin antes recordar al presidente Hugo Chávez, quien visitó Siria y lo acompañó a Maaloula, lugar que sufrió un ataque extremista hace unos días. … El Presidente Chavez dijo en Maaloula: "Si hay algo de humanidad no puede ser compatible con un ataque y asalto contra Siria .. ¿cómo no apoyar al gobierno sirio? .. ¿Cómo no apoyar al gobierno del presidente Bashar al-Assad? .. ¿cómo podemos apoyar a los grupos armados" .. Me gustaría que nos cuente su impresión de sus recuerdos con el Presidente Chavez, y .. ¿Cuál es su opinión acerca de la postura de Venezuela y los países del ALBA en su defensa de la libertad y los derechos del pueblo sirio y de Siria?

Presidente Al-Assad:

"Nosotros siempre hablamos del tercer mundo. Tanto ustedes como nosotros somos parte de ese tercer mundo, el cual ha pasado por varias etapas hasta lograr su independencia. Primero fue la etapa de la salida de las fuerzas extranjeras del país ocupado… la mayoría de los países lograron su independencia. La segunda y más importante etapa fue la autonomía de la decisión política, económica y militar, que es la soberanía de la decisión nacional. Eso es lo que se ha logrado en América Latina durante las dos últimas décadas, e igualmente en Centro América. Hubo dos símbolos que representan esa independencia… El presidente Castro, desde hace 5 décadas y hasta el momento actual, y el presidente Chávez. Cuando recordamos al presidente Chávez, recordamos esa etapa, porque el proceso de parto por el que está atravesando nuestra región es similar al que presenció anteriormente América Latina". "Después de lograr la autodeterminación nacional, las cosas en América del Sur e inclusive en Centro América han sido mucho mejor que antes. La estabilidad política empezó a dar sus frutos en la economía; empezó el desarrollo económico, empezaron algunos países a emerger en la industria, convirtiéndose en grandes economías mundiales. Esa es una consecuencia natural de la independencia. En la zona árabe solo tenemos hasta ahora una mínima autodeterminación, y solamente en unos pocos países y de manera parcial.

El conflicto que se está desarrollando ahora con Occidente tiene que ver con este punto, es decir, en obtener la autodeterminación. Creo que en Sudamérica en general, y en Venezuela con Chávez, y anteriormente Cuba con Castro, en particular, representa un ejemplo importante para el camino hacia la independencia y la libertad a la que aspiran los pueblos para salir de debajo de la túnica de la hegemonía occidental, la cual ha durado muchas décadas, bien a través de la colonización directa o la indirecta, que aún perdura.

Hay muchas cosas similares, el carácter, las emociones, la calidez que comparten los hijos de un mismo pueblo en vuestra zona, y lo mismo en la nuestra. Existe un contexto histórico parecido, es previsible que haya también, aparte del presidente Chávez y el Presidente Castro, muchos líderes que sigan la misma línea, y miren nuestra zona desde la misma perspectiva objetiva, que respalden las causas árabes en general y la siria en particular.

Deseo recordar especialmente al presidente Maduro, amigo y hermano, a quien conocí a través de varios encuentros cuando visité Venezuela, o cuando vino él a Siria. Nos sentimos muy contentos de que el pueblo venezolano haya elegido a esta persona que personifica la misma línea de Chávez.

El presidente Maduro posee tenacidad y energía, y una visión clara de nuestra región, .. estoy seguro que continuará en el camino hacia la independencia de Venezuela.

Todos sabemos que Estados Unidos y algunos países aliados tenían grandes esperanzas de que Venezuela regresase al patio de Estados Unidos una vez desapareciera el presidente Chávez. Con la presencia del presidente Maduro esas esperanzas no se lograron y se desvanecieron. Pienso que el trayecto de Suramérica es el mismo que deberían seguir los países árabes si es que deseamos ocupar un lugar en el mundo, si deseamos la estabilidad y el desarrollo. Por eso tenemos hoy una oportunidad para recordar las hazañas del difunto presidente Chávez en este contexto, bien sea en Venezuela o en toda Latinoamérica.

Pregunta 18: Muchas gracias presidente, fue un grato placer tenerlo en el canal Telesur y en América latina. Gracias por todas estas palabras y frases que nos ha dicho. Díganos un último mensaje a América Latita, ¿Siria resistirá? ¿Saldrá victoriosa?

Presidente Al-Assad:

Si tuviésemos otras opciones que no sea la resistencia, te las diría, pero no tenemos otra…. El futuro de esta zona, ahora, en lo político, depende de lo que ocurra en Siria. Nosotros no defendemos solamente a Siria; no defendemos solamente nuestros intereses o nuestros principios, sino que estamos defendiendo el futuro de nuestros hijos, el futuro de toda esta región. Esta región es el corazón del mundo. El Medio Oriente convulso es el que ha afectado la estabilidad en el mundo y ha afectado incluso los intereses del mundo lejano.

No podemos hablar hoy de una región lejana, como América Latina y Norteamérica, o el este de Asia, pues el mundo es hoy una pequeña aldea… Lo que ocurra en Siria afectará su entorno, y lo que ocurra en esta zona afectará las zonas más lejanas del planeta. No quiero pedir a los pueblos de Latinoamérica que respalden nuestras causas, pues ellos han respaldado siempre las causas árabes de una manera no menos entusiasta y objetiva que la nuestra, que somos los hijos de esta región y dueños de estas causas. Mas creo que deberíamos incrementar la relación mutua para acrecentar así el área de la independencia y reducir el área de la colonización la cual encarnan Occidente y Estados Unidos.

Final de la Entrevista