NCRI – A European-American Conference was convened on invitation of the Friends of Free Iran intergroup in the European Parliament on February 7, in relation to the current political situation in Iran and the region, and the necessity of protecting Ashraf residents, members of the Iranian opposition.
Senator Robert Torricelli: Thank you very much, Mrs. Rajavi and my colleagues and friends for all of you who are members of the Parliament, for you this may be routine. But for those of us from the United States, this is indeed a great honor to be in the Parliament today. It has occurred to me, seeing the Italian translation booth, that but for a quirk of fate of my grandmother I’d be spending my weekends in Sicily campaigning to try to fight for this seat. And of course once I got here I’d be fighting with Kennedy to keep the Italian taxpayers from subsidizing Ireland. [laughter] But I am honored and pleased to be here today.
As a young man I remember first day of school, the history teacher asking the class why we studied history in chapters, when human life is a continuum? And since no student had the answer she volunteered one, because that’s how we live. Generations begin and they end. Eras come and they go. The human experience is punctuated by events. Sitting here today it occurs to me that events in the Middle East are providing another punctuation, the beginning of a new chapter. What has been happening in Iran since the revolution of 1979 is not sustainable. It is running its course. Precipitating these events, of course, are the decision of Iran to have atomic weapons.
I once read an analysis that it took the United States only four years to develop the atom bomb, and 40 years to develop a philosophy of how to control it. That philosophy has gone through various phases: containment, retaliation. They worked for the Soviet Union, they may have worked for China, but dealing with Iran is a different situation. The best evidence of course of that is the regime itself. Last week, in fact, the statement that Israel needs to be removed from the face of the earth. Nations can differ, they have conflicting interests, but no nation which as a stated policy believes that another nation, indeed a respected member of the international community and a member of the United Nations, should be removed from the face of the earth—that is the 40 years, the now 65 years, that it has taken to develop a philosophy of how to deal with these weapons. Containment is not enough, retaliation is not enough. There are nations by their very nature of the irresponsibility of their philosophy and their governance and their stated goal that cannot be allowed to possess certain weapons, period.
For all the difficulties of recent years, few things have been more hopeful to me than to see the wide variety of interest in the world, the varied nations that have been willing to come forward behind this policy, of not only sanctions but meaningful sanctions that will force some resolution. Now, it is not for us here today to decide or in any meaningful influence whether this is a military decision or a political decision. That will be decided by others. But in my life’s experience, success requires dealing with issues, as we say, around the curve. And whether or not the Iranian situation is resolved militarily or economically or politically, for us today the responsibility is the same. And that is, who will fill this vacuum, and what will the political realities be within Iran when the mullahs fail, as inevitably they will fail? Even at this late point in the human experience of our own generation we’ve gotten this wrong as much as we’ve gotten it right. Friends of mine in the State Department recall that when President Bush called President Putin to announce the invasion of Iraq, President Putin said, “Well, I don’t agree with you. I’m sorry you’re going to do it. But if you do, one piece of advice. Make certain that there is a structure, a governing structure in Iraq in place when Saddam Hussein falls.” The failure to take that one piece of advice made all the difference. Indeed, the mullahs themselves are a product of that failure. The Western nations, most notably my own, investing all political capital in the Shah so that when he fell there was nothing but the mullahs. Is this a difficult lesson for us to learn?
As I’ve suggested I could not write the scenario of how the mullahs fall, only the inevitability of the fact that they will fall. And you can tell by the speed of events hat it will be soon. No nation can sustain this kind of isolation, economic pressure, internal political discord, this kind of pressure on your own people through your own abuse. But what will there be? The MEK is not an international problem. It is an international opportunity. Nations have different views, you can like them, hate them, love them. Your views can vary. But what they are is the MEK is among those few organizations, and the National Council of Resistance is the umbrella of organizations, to assure that we do not face a chaotic vacuum in Iran, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or five years from now, that will produce another political problem as bad or worse or in any case not a solution to what we now know in Iran.
As this battle unfolds, as is often the case, it is often the innocent who are the most notable victims. The situation in Ashraf, to me, is a proxy war. These few thousand people who have a relatively modest request of the world, they’d like to survive. They don’t seek territory or riches or political [0:08:38] they would like to live. They’d like to find a place to live. Surely in this vast globe, in all of our nations of hundreds of millions of people, there is somewhere for 3,000 people to go and live their lives in decency and safety. I believe my nation is soon prepared to meet its responsibility to receive some of these people. I hope yours will do the same.
In the interim, I hope that we all have the strength to have the commitments that we’ve all made through the years in the United Nations have some meaning. Iraqi government has decided to transport these innocent people to a new camp. A sovereign nation, I assume they have that right. But they don’t have the right to deny them the ability to live in safety, or basic human rights, or meet basic human needs, or not be oppressed by police forces, or lacking contact with the human world or the ability to express. Certainly they don’t have the right to move them and not define the circumstances under which they would live. But that’s exactly what’s happening.
I have great respect for these international organizations of which all of our companies belong. But the test of any organization, and any philosophy, is not how you treat yourselves. The quality of the United Nations and all it stands for will not be decided by how it treats the United States or Britain or Germany or France. They’ll all be fine, thank you, without the UN help. The quality of our international organizations is how it treats the weakest, the smallest, the most vulnerable, those in need. The greatest test of that today in the international community is to be found in Ashraf. That is our test. So far, we’re not doing well. In the coming weeks, if people are to be moved, let us see whether there is a written commitment to their rights, circumstances under which we live. That will tell us a lot about ourselves and our countries. And then let us only hope that we are all wise enough to see through this policy of denying the mullahs the weapons they seek. That will tell us a lot of whether we’ve learned anything about history. And then indeed, whether or not we embrace the Iranian opposition sufficiently to ensure that when the curve of history turns there is someone prepared to help govern that country and bring it back and steer it back into the international community. Thank you all very much.
