A/42/PV.6 General Assembly
The Assembly will now hear
an address by the president of the Republic of Guatemala.
Mr. Marco Vinicio Cerezo-Arevalo, President of the Republic of Guatemala, was
escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to
welcome to the united Nations the President of the Republic of Guatemala, His
Excellency Mr. Marco Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo, and to invite him to address the
Assembly.
President CEREZO-AREVALO (interpretation from Spanish): I come before
the Assembly representing the Guatemalan nation and its desire to contribute to
peace in the world by helping build peace in Central America.
The Guatemalan people, as I pointed out in my statement in this Assembly in
1986, have taken over the conduct of their own history and are determined to
travel, step by step, the road leading to the attainment of our own utopia: to
make Guatemalan society a profoundly humane society, based on participation and
pluralism, in which all inhabitants, without distinction as to race, ideology,
social sector or economic status, can contribute actively to the taking of
decisions essential to our nation. In order to travel that road, the people have
chosen the criteria that we have proposed, and in order to attain our objectives we
are making rational use of the available human and material resources.
It is important to emphasize this latter point, because when one seeks to
understand the nature of the proposals we have made to our nation and to Central
America one finds in all of them a conscious choice of absolute respect for the
life of men and the preservation of the natural resources available to us, so that
they may serve all Guatemalan families rather than the interests of a single sector.
The attainment of objectives at the lowest possible cost without compromising
our principles is the common denominator of each of the measures we have adopted.
We reject the concept that appears to have become widespread in recent decades,
that the attainment of objectives justifies loss of human life or the destruction
of the infrastructure and of natural resources, which do not belong to any
ideology, faction or economic group but rather to the nation.
On the basis of that principle, we have made it our practice in all
circumstances to work towards agreement and avoid confrontation. We define
consensus as the maximum degree of agreement possible within disagreement and, even
though we exercise legittmate power in taking final decisions, we always make the
greatest effort to ensure that those decisions will be the fruit of an extended
process of consultation, discussion and the contribution of ideas even by those
social, economic or political groups that do not share with us the ideological
underpinnings that define the democratic society that we espouse. If at any time
we have had to confront any sector, group or faction of our society, it has been
~cause of its intransigence or negative attitude in the search for a common
solution for the benefit of the community.
We call this process of seeking a consensus concerted effort. It is a method
that some would describe as naive and others as slow or inefficient. But, since we
pride ourselves on being familiar with our own history and do not wish to relive
it, we well know that all other methods - violence or the exercise of absolute
power - have, in the course of our independent life and particularly in the past 20
years, produced only destruction and death without achieving positive results for
the benefit of our peoples, which still await a solution to many of their most
elementary problems.
(President Cerezo-Arevalo)
A decision of this nature requires historic courage because it involves a
definitive change in many of the traditional attitudes of certain of the leaders of
our countries: the temptation to seek absolute power; the rejection of ideological
pluralismJ party or sectoral fanaticism; the selfishness of the economic interests
of families or individuals~ and, especially, the impatience that often leads to
erroneous decisions to accelerate processes that should develop throughout the life
of an entire generation, in the hope that they can be completed successfully within
a presidential term of office. Our peoples are tired of being sacrificed to
experiment and expect of us, the current leaders of the Central American and
American nations and of the nations of the world, a serious, prudent and realistic
attitude, so that the path towards the construction of a more humane society will
become a one-way street.
Today, democracy and human rights are inseparable concepts. If the
restoration of democracy in a nation that has lost it is a difficult task, it is no
less difficult to establish respect for human rights in a society that has suffered
from a climate of violence.
The constitution of Guatemala, which governs our democracy, accords a primary
place to human rights, and my Government has successfully undertaken to guarantee
and protect those rights.
Those concepts,'which guide Guatemala's political conduct, are also
fundamental to the policies we advoc~te at the international level, namely, active
neutrality and a Central American parliament.
In defining the concept of active neutrality, particular account should be
taken of its political, ideological and methodological aspects, and a due
relationship to the legal sphere should be established as appropriate. Some who
have commented on this concept have indicated that there can be no active
neutrality, because when viewing the concept they take the two words separately;
naturally, the word "neutrality," taken in its international context, has its basis
in legal language. Our proposal is an integrated concept that would correspond to
our international policy and would mean rejecting involvement in armed conflicts
and working actively to achieve peace through diplomacy or political action
involving concerted effort.
That policy is based on the belief that those efforts should be aimed at
achieving agreements and establishing consensus to reduce any chance of
confrontation so as to achieve the final objectives at the lowest possible cost.
Of course, although we reject armed confrontation, we must recognize that there are
problems in our region that could lead to such confrontation. In our history, many
of the internal conflicts of our country have been instigated, supported, fomented
or, at the very least, tolerated by some neighbouring countries that hav~sought to
impose their own ideology or to prevent the implantation of a neighbour's political
system in their own country. That gravely erroneous course must not be repeated.
We must attempt to establish in each country of Central America the conditions
necessary for tolerance, pluralism and the free participation of all sectors in the
political life of the nation.
If we act within the framework of established norms and in consultation with
the people, using the most appropriate machinery to secure their effective and free
(President Cerezo-Arevalo)
participation, that will reduce domestic tensions and the chance of conflicts among
our countries and inevitably lead to mutual respect, which we are entitled to
expect.
Instead of accepting confrontation, we must act to establish methods that
allow dialogue to lead to an understanding of our problems and to their solution.
That is the meaning of "active neutrality": the rejection of armed conflict and
active efforts to secure peace through concerted effort.
An international policy such as the one we have defined, the backbone of which
is recognition of the realities peculiar to each country and the search for accords
designed to establish regional consensus, requires a permanent instrument for
implementation of the proposed method of concerted effort to establish the bases
for Central American political unity, which would be the historical consequence, in
the medium or longer term, of such a process.
Thus the proposed Central American parliament would be a forum for discussions
and the taking of decisions relating to the solution of problems common to all of
us or that affect one or more of the region's countries, problems that could
threaten generalized conflict and impede the economic and social development of our
peoples.
Such a parliament, inspired by the model of the European Parliament, would
also seek to make our peoples and the various political and economic social sectors
parts of the process of regional integration. It is vitally important that its
members be elected directly. That would resolve the problem presented by broad
political spread and pluralism and would open the way to proportional
representation. At the same time, the proposed system would guarantee respect for
the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each country.The'-··
parliament could even eventually establish a higher-level political body in the
form of a presidental commission to give executive validity to agreements reached
at the parliamentary level.
A Central American parliament could also complement and strengthen those
negotiating formulas that may lead to peace in the region through concerted effort
and the setting aside of traditional attitudes of polarity and confrontation.
Concerted effort, active neutrality and a Central American parliament - those
are the political instruments that embody our country's position in the context of
the present-day reality of Central America and the need to achieve political
stability, security and peace in the region.
With those instruments, we seek to inspire a positive and optimistic attitude
towards the future without forgetting our geopolitical context and our economic and
social problems, and to bring about specific and imaginative solutions to those
problems that take both national and regional interests into account. With those
concepts, we hope to give the countries of Central America an opportunity to work
with all nations interested in our region. We hope to enable them to act ogether
so that with each agreement and each year a further step will be taken towards
making the peoples of Central America true protagonists in the historic events we
are experiencing.
From the foregoing, it is easy to deduce the short- and medium-term objecti~es
of Guatemala's international policy. The first objective is the initiation of a
peace process. Peace in Central America is more than a utopian goal; it is a
fundamental necessity in the process of the economic and social development of each
country.
Armed groups that use violence in their attempts to wrest political power from
constituted Go.vernments provoke armed clashes that are no longer merely modes of
political struggle but serious obstacles to the solution of political, economic and
Those struggles, which entail a constant waste of resources, destroy the scant
infrastructures of rag ions thl!llt have barely begun the process of modernization,· and
they compel Governments to allocate vast resources to armed confrontation instead
of to the building of broader and more efficient infrastructures that can meet the
.basic needs of the populations. In such small-scale conflicts the final outcome is
less significant than the fact that they prevent the countries involved from
consolidating the democracy to which all aspire.
It is obvious that in the situation in Central America, at least in certain
countries, violence is a major obstacle to the solution of economic and social
problems. We are concerned that such violence may increase and become more
widespread.
The prevention of such a disaster was the goal of the Central American
Presidents at the two meetings held in Guatemala, Esauipulas I and 11, in which we
sought formulas to eliminate the causes of confrontation and lay the foundations
for harmonious and fraternal coexistence.
At the last meeting we not only worked to avoid the eventuality to which I
have referred, when discussing the proposal contained in the document submitted by
the President of Costa Rica, we also lay the foundations for processes to eradicate
the causes of problems created by armed conflict that were leading to difficult
situations, particularly in some countries.
Thus, in Central America it is not necessary merely to stop war; it is also
necessary to begin to construct an infrastructure that would help to
institutionalize democracy in the area and guarantee lasting peace and economic and
social development.
(President Cerezo-Arevalo)
The essential corollary of peace is political stability, which is possible in
a pluralistic environment in which all the sectors of society can organize and take
part in the major decisions of the nation. My personal idea - and I am sure it is
shared by the Gua temalan nation - is that that process can occur only in a
democratic society, because that kind of society makes it possible to lower the
tensions that lead to polar ization and confronta tion. In fact, our current
experience in Guatemala - like the experience of other Latin American nations -
shows that it is possible to solve economic and social problems through political
pluralism and the organized participation of the people. If that process is
consolidated in the Central American region over an extended period, we shall
guar an tee the wise use of our resources and the ir equi table dis tr ibu tion among all
the sectors of the population.
But, While stability is necessary for the develo~ent of a nation, it is even
more necessary for the developmen t of a given region. Therefore, we sta te tha t
institutionalizing the political processes and learning to work together and
develop our au tonomy of action are factors tha t will help to make the Cen tral
1Imer ican region stable.
No efforts to achieve peace and political stability can be sustained long
enough unless the process of what I have referred to as "concerted effort- becomes
institutionalized. That is why the proposal for a Central American parliament has
been made - a political institution which would appropriately complement the
var ious economic and cul tural organizations that have been developed over recen t
years in the region, and which would help to create new institutions to strengthen
and update the functioning of those earlier institutions.
Those three objectives are absolutely complementary, and we can state that we
are on the way to achieving them, having signed the agreement of 7 August this
year. The five Central American presidents, overcoming the regional tradition,
resolved their differences and, taking realistic account of the factors and
circumstances that have a bearing on the Central American region. reached an
agreement which, by its political scope and its potential effects. is in itself an
example of concerted effort for the other nations of the world to see: the highest
level of agreement possible within disagreement.
The document signed by the Presidents in the quest for a procedure for firm
and lasting peace in Central Ame-rica is truly a logical step towards the
achievement of the objectives that I have descr ibed. Tha t agreement would no t have
been possible without the contribution and the efforts of the Latin American
countries of the Contadora Group and the unreserved solidarity of the nations of
the Suppor t Group. There can be no doubt that those effor ts helped to promote an
appropriate environment for a thorough discussion, in the various political and
economic forums throughout America, of the problems of Central America. That led
to the serious and strong endorsement of the expecta tions opened up by the signing
of the "Esquipulas !I" agreement.
It is my duty to acknowledge the role played by each of my Central American
colleagues in the drawing up of th is agreement. I laud the poli Hcal courage and
the historic commitment demonstrated by each of the nations in subscribing to that
agreement, notwithstanding all the difficul ties that each one of us could face as a
result of internal and external opposition. Of course, we could not have taken any
decision without the untiring efforts of the Foreign Ministers and their working
teams. which made the necessary opening that enabled us to take the decisions at
the right time.
The "Esquipulas 11" agreemen t is only a fir st step on a long road. We cannot
proclaim to the world that the mere fact of having signed it has solved all the
(President Cerezo-Arevalo)
problems, that peace and stability have been achieved. Far from it: now comes the
hard part of this task, because if it was difficult to achieve agreements that
seemed qui te improbable, it is even more difficult to put them into effect.
We Guatemalans, at any rate, are optimistic, because we believe that we can go
a very long way if there is the political will to move ahead. Our peoples back us
up. We look forward ardently to peace. We are tired of sUffering. That is why
this agreement has encouraged a regional movement for peace, which young people and
women have joined. That was the case at the fir st meeting of Central AIDer ican
First Ladies, held recently in Gua temala. And there will be other cuI tural and
social events during the remainder of the year at which young people will manifest
their feelings in this respect.
Today, I appeal to the international community to help us to convert the
"Esquipulas 11" agreement into concrete reality, so that that process will truly
lead to a firm and lasting peace in Central Amer ica which will make it possible for
us to change, once and for all, the sad des tiny tha t had seemed in evi table for 0 ur
peoples. There have been certain major achievements in this process already. For
example, the interest of many countries in various continents has been aroused in
the need to co-operate for the economic and social development of the region. It
has repeatedly been pointed out that it would be most important for this
Co-operation to be prCNided to the five Central American countries at the same time
as a process of democratization was being developed. This is the time for the
international community to show its solidarity at all levels. I have no doubt that
the response to this appeal will be enthusiastic and will enable us to feel that we
are not alone in our struggle for a new regional society.
In that sense, we regard the interest of North American pUblic opinion in the
problems of Central America as very positive. We know that the people of the
Uni ted States have a commitment to the cause of deJOOcracy and freedom in the
world. That is why I wish to repeat here the appeal of the Central Americans for a
quest for a bipartisan agreement in the Uni ted Sta tes in regard to our region.
In order to achieve these objective, it is essential to accept the idea that
in the quest for peace and democracy in Central America the agreement by the
Presidents is not a point of reference that one can take or leave, but, rather, a
point of departure for finding solutions. For the agreement represents what we
want, and it is within the framework of that agreement - if it is respected - that
the discussion for the achievement of a firm and lasting peace in Central America
should be placed.
We Central Amer ican Presidents have said what we should do to star t. a t long
last, on the road leading to the realization of our aspirations: real and true
democracy, in which all the sectors of the country will contribute and will
participate in the taking of those decisions that will enable the political leaders
to set up a government that will truly be of, for and by the people.
The alternative is to let the process collapse. or to force us to choose some
other path. I do not wish to discuss that here, or even to Comment on it, because
it is what has always occurred in the countries that do not have the monopoly of
force. That is the sad part of the history of the world.
Fortunately, a discussion has now been opened, in which we can talk about the
method to change this traditional attitude and can abandon confrontation and move
towards concerted political effort.
We Central Americans are aware that our problems are embodied in a world-wide
set of problems, and that our imaginative efforts can contribute to the quest for
SOlutions in that context. The SUbjects of peace in the world deserve our special
attention. That is why we look forward with great hope to the attainment by the
great Powers of agreements leading to gradual disarmament and the elimination of
nuclear weapons and all the risks .of the destruction of mankind.
Disarmament and development are two of the problems tha t weigh most heavily on
the contemporary world, they must be understood as two distinct processes that are
closely related. Each has a separate development and distinct goals. one
complements the other. Disarmament complements development by means of the
reallocation of financial resources, which can be put to better use in development
programmes, particular ly the struggle against illiteracy, disease and malnutr i tion
and the eradication of the poverty that affHets more than two thirds of mankind.
We sincerely believe in the need for a new international economic order and
will therefore energetically support any effort to restore North-South dialoguei
and we are, of course, working to find new ways for Sou th-SOu th co-opera tion. I
believe this is an area where much remains to be explored. Our role in the Group
of 77 will always be to increase awareness of the need for greater and deeper links
among developing countries.
The situation of the world economy weighs heavily on the developing
countries. What is even more serious, the prospects for their future development
are gloomy. This state of affairs obtains despite the internal effort most of our
countries have made through adjustment programmes. We are facing an alarming
decline in the standard of living of large sectors of our societies, and we meet
with a lack of understanding and with selfishness on the part of some of the most
privileged sectors.
It is clear that to escape the present deadlock we must make exhaustive
efforts and accept sacrifices. Thus, we also need resolute and appropriate
co-operation from the developed world. This must be a joint effort by all of us
who make up the international community. The debt burden, limited financing and
the sharp deterioration in terms of trade are problems we must face together,
taking into account principles such as joint responsibility and solidarity.
Subjects such as the establishment of machinery to facilitate the renegotiation of
external debt payments and the promotion of agreements among developed countries
enabling us to recycle capi tal in order to modernize our service infrastructure
should be the subject of prompt, careful analysis.
I am convinced that we are at the dawn of a new age in the history of mankind,
when an awareness of the repercussions of war is making us try to build peace. The
greatest responsibility here belongs to those who hold a monopoly of power, for
they must let us exercise the sole power we have in good measure: the power of our
own convictions.
May God help our international society move in that direction. For then our
efforts in Central America could enable us to set a good example, so that other
regions, now sUffering the consequences of violence and confrontation, might look
wi t.h hope upon the power of appropr ia te po1i tica1 agreemen ts to bu ild peace and
stability and respond to, the call of our peoples for the fulfilment of their own
basic needs.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the
President of the Republic of Guatemala for the important statement he has just made.
Mr. Marco VinicioCerezo'Arevalo, President'of the Republic of Guatemala, was
escorted from the General Assembly Hall.
ADDRESS BY HOJJAT-UL-ISLAM SEYED ALl KHAMENEI, PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
The Assembly will now hear
an address by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Hojjat-ul-Islam Seyed AI! Khamenei,Presidentofthe Islamic Republic of Iran,
was'escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to
welcome to the United Nations the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, His
Excellency Hojja t-ul-Is1am Seyed Ali Kamenei, and to invite him to address the
General Assembly.
President KHAMENEI (spoke in Persian; English text furnished by the
delegation): 0 Lord, with Thy holy name I begin and from Thee I seek guidance and
support. My life and death, my petition, prayer and praise belong to Thee. I
beseech Thee to grant the clad ty and magnetism of the word of tru th to my
utterances and make them a message for the millions of people who passionately
thirst after truth and for those who shall, in the future, seek the truth. 0 God
Almigh ty, my nation and I offer our thankful saluta tions to the souls of Thy great
prophets, in particular, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad - Thy peace be upon
them - who did their utmost and gave their lives in order to spread and immortalize
the message of awareness and salva tion of man, and our humble salu ta tions to the
pure and enlightened hearts who obeyed Thy message, especially to those among them
who sacrificed their lives because of it.
My country has been a centre of man's civilization and culture at some
important, elevated stages of history and at present is the setting for a political
sys tem based on the same cuI tut' al background and tradi tions, which are now further
enriched by an Islamic awakening. I come here from a land which is the birthplace
of a more famed but less understood revolution in contemporary history, a
revolution founded on the religion of God, marching along the p:ath of the prophets
and great'spiritual reformers, a path as long as the history of mankind.
Islam's unitarian weltanschauung is the unshakable foundation and the
fundamental thinking of this revolution. The meaning of man, the interpretation of
history, the analysis of past, present and future events, the concept of the
mater ial world, the explanation of elements that bind man to the wor Id outside him,
the earth, human beings and objects, man's understanding of his own existence - in
Short, everything that goes into the formation of human society's value system to
attain an orderly human adminis tra tion - are rooted in and emana te from this divine
outlook.
In Islamic thought all exis tenc'e is the crea tion of God and an image of His
knowledge and power; the whole universe is attracted to Him and man is His creature
superior to others and His heir on earth.
ExPloiting his intrinsic talents man can build the world created for him in
the most beautiful ways and, flying on the two wings of faith and knowledge, rise
to the highest spiritual and material peaks. Conversely, man can create a hell of
oppression and corruption by going astray and wasting and perverting his God-given
potential. The only light illuminating his path is belief in God and submission to
His commands. The temporal world is a cuI tiva ting ground for the next world and
death is not the end of life but only a passage to immortality and the beginning of
a new existence.
In Islam's divine thought all mankind are brothers and sisters and creatures
of the Almighty. There is no discrimination because of colour, race, sex or
geographical location of people and these distinctions do not make one man or a
na tion super ior to others. When racial and geographical character istics are
disregarded, an act of aggression against a person is aggression against humanity.
The feeling of superiority and monopoly has set brother against brother, and
the blood that has flowed has never dr ied. The same motives and t.he same actions
created streams of blood and, finally, seas of blood have appeared between those
seeking superiority and domination and the victims of such arrogance. In this way
peace has been taken out of man's life.
The prophets invited people to submit to God, because this crushes the feeling
of egocentrism and superiority in man and offers him the purity and tranquillity of
a paradise on earth before the eternal one in heaven. They persuaded man to
cantrol his instinct of domination and superiority. They also warned against
wasting human potential and slipping into the mire of moral corruption. They
opened fountains of virtousness, honesty, love, work, initiative, knowledge and
consciousness and they stressed the love of God and His blessing of people, which
are man/ s only insurance against perver sions and are a guarantee of the sublimation
of his soul.
They taught man to use his power to safeguard these values, to block the path
of the intruding satans of corruption and perversion, to fight ignorance and the
cruelty of slavery, to safeguard knowledge, justice and freedom. They taught him
neither to oppress nor to let others oppress himJ they taught him to rise in
defence of equity and justice and not to give evil a chance. They also taught him
that surrendering to enemies of justice, virtuosness and charity only resul ts in
the des tr uction of these values and arnoun ts to aoqu iescence in ev il, oppr eSB ion and
corruption.
In Islam's divine thought the religion of God is not only the crowning of
man's virtuousness, but the very form of life itself. Religion offers man a
complete social system, not merely some forms of worship and certain traditions,
even though services of worship and traditions are full of the spirit of life and
serve the same system. The social system is based on the same religious outlook.
Freedom and liberty, the equality of people, social justice, awareness of society's
individuals, the combating of corruption and perversion, the superiority of human
ideals over individual desires, the rejection of satanic domination, personal
behaviour and ethics, and occupational and political scrupulousness are all born of
and inspired by the same universal interpretation of the world and man. Islam
rejects as immoral all systems founded on force, oppression, ignorance,
suppression, tyranny and humiliation of man through discrimination on grounds of
race, na tion, blood or language It commands the fai thful to approach wi th love,
affection and support all mankind, co-religionist or not, except those determined
to fight the Islamic order, who must be faced uncompromisingly.
It was on such basic principles and with such objectives that an Islamic
revolution emerged in Iran and laid the foundations of an Islamic republic. Many
analysts have searched for the roots of the Islamic revolution in February 1979,
and many of them have failed to understand it correctly. In our opinion, th is
great event was partly a consequence of the inefficiency of the existing systems in
the world and the emptiness and falsehood of the slogans of democracy and equality
in those systems. Islam was able once again to shine in this dark atmosphere
through the dus t of dis tor tions and misconceptions thrown in its way for many
centuries. The sun of Islam shone on Iran and brought about a revolutionary
storm. It is expected to shine on many other parts of the world. We must wai t and
see. But, despite earfuls of adverse propaganda, the awakening of Muslims in many
Islamic countries is not an offspring of Iran's Islamic revolution; it is its
brother-in-Islam.
Iran is located at one of the most sensitive sites of strategic importance.
It has a background of science and culture and abounds in material resources. The
Islamic revolution in Iran was meant to be against a regime that had put all this
at the service of the interests of the imperial-minded Powers of the world,
particularly those of the united States of America, for almost a auarter of a
century. Nobody needed the spiritual and material w~alth of Iran more than the
Iranian people, but they were denied it. The ancient regime's claims of progress
and modernization were all false, but the West's propaganda machine, especially its
Zionist component, keep publicizing them. It was such a regime that the Islamic
revolution toppled, proposing its own significant goals. Nine years have passed,
yet it is still felt that the answers to many questions are not quite clear. The
fact is that in the case of our revolution and our views and principles much more
uninformed opinion and evil talk has been heard than in other cases.
I shall now try, for the benefit of those interested in truth, to shed light
on certain exceptional aspects which give different characteristics to this
revolution. I shall end my statement with a brief message.
First, the revolution was from its beginnings a people's revolution - totally,
100 per cent. None of the familiar forms that have been instrumental in certain
other revolutions were active or even present in our revolution: no armed
guerrilla groups, no active military-political party, no groups of revolutionary,
free officers and the like. There were only people, and unarmed people at that,
who filled Tehran and other cities and towns in Iran with their presence. They
crowded the streets and filled the air in the cities with their revolutionary
presence and revolutionary slogans, in such a way that there was no room to breathe
for the ruling clique and its gOl7ernmentJ they simply had to leave their castles
and centres of power and, one by one or in groups, to leave the country hastily.
The Shah, the Prime Minister, generals of the army, ministers and other important
cr imina1s fled the coun try when they could to avoid the wrath of the people.
This, of course, happened after a long year during w~ich the regime had
exploited all the political, military and police resources at its service to
disperse people and force them back to work or to their houses, and in order to
ach ieve this had shot and killed thousands of them in the streets, in the mosques,
in the universities and in their workplaces, openly and indiscriminately. Despite
all these measures, however, the people's presence had increased. In the very last
months, when the regime became more violent, the people came out in millions. The
regime, cracking under the pressure of people who no longer had any regard for
the ir 1 ives, could not wi ths tand the onslaught of the mass es and was forced to mak e
its greatest concession: it sacr ificed the Shah. He fled the coun try, never to
return, and after this the regime's retreat accelerated.
The grea t leader of the revolution, whose every word to every indiv idual
Iranian was a lesson in awareness, resolve and purpose, was able to announce the
formation of a revolutionary administration with trust in God Almighty, Who
encompasses all other powers, and with reliance on the people's indomitable wilL
The Shah's tyrannical rule, which was left with no option, collapsed automatically
and melted away. The last bastions of the regime were barracks with no soldiers or
officers. In the last hours a few garrisons showed some resistance, but all was in
vain, because people were everywhere and OI1ercame them. The miracle of this
revolutipn was the victory of the people. It was only after the collapse of the
military garrisons that arms fell into the hands of the people~ but then the
kingdom had already collapsed and these weapons were used for the protection of the
(President Khamenei)
new revolutionary order. People, young and old, men and women, were the agents who
defeated the Shahts regime, which was armed to the teeth and enjoyed the support of
the biggest Powers. It was the people who established the order of an Islamic
republic, and their weapons were their faith, their determination and their blood -
and blood overcame the sword.
(President Khamenei)
The doctrine of blood overcoming the sword is the old policy of the oppressed
resisting and fighting the oppressor that was declared by the leader of our
revolution long before it took place. Thus the first victory of our revolution was
against the armed regime of the Shah, who was strongly backed by the West and the
united States. It has since gained us other victories, ,some of which may even be
rated as more important than defeating the Shah. This unique experience - unique
at least in the last century - deserves to be carefully studied by, both the
oppressed nations and those oppressive Powers which underestimate the power of the
people.
Secondly, this revolution had its roots in religion, in Islam. There have
been many revolutionary movements in history the combative spirit of which was
fuelled by a religious faith, but little or no account has been taken of this
factor by many analysts. In our revolution, however, everything was taken from
Islam: its aims, its principles and its methodS of struggle, as well as the
formation of the new order and the particular form of its administration.
This fact gives certain surprising dimensions to the definition of revolution
and new meanings to its victory. As we know, Islam has been a target of assaults
for the last century and a half by colonial Powers and their subservient,
reactionary agents exactly because of its inexhaustible capacity for revolution and
reconstruction. Furthermore, Islam is a sacred faith and a divine religion in more
than 50 countries and among some 1,000 million Muslims and, therefore, a
revolutionary victory the spirit and substance of which is derived from Islam is in
fact the victory of those billion people over all historic invaders against Islam.
It is for this reason that hundreds of millions of Muslims in dozens of Islamic
countries have welcomed the victory of our revolution.
This religious characteristic also stops the people, the leader of the
revolution and its administrators from any retreat, defeat, fear or weakness. When
you fight for God there is no defeat, let alone fear, weakness or retreat.
Thirdly, non-reliance on either East or West was another exceptional
characteristic of this revolution and is now the fundamental policy of our
revolutionary system.
This in itself is one of the manifestations of the belief and trust in God in
all spheres of our individual and social life. The dominant thinking in the
political world today believes that without reliance on one of the power blocs no
movement may survive in the contemporary political world. There may be a
difference of emphasis about this but there seems to be no argument on the sacred
principle. There are also people who, ideologically speaking, endorse non-reliance
or non-alignment but do not suppose, pragmatically speaking, that it could work.
Our revolution has, in such an atmosphere, o!fered a new philosophy and followed it
most sincerely. Our revolution proved that the imperial-minded Powers may be
ignored, that their bullying tactics may be resisted and that blackmailing may not
be effective provide~ that there is belief in a power much more powerful than all
material powers: belief in God Almighty.
We know quite well that for this belief and in this struggle we have to pay a
heavy price and we are prepared for it.
Let this experience illuminate the path of nations to true independence and
the total rejection of the hegemony of the big powersi the present division of
power threatens humanity with a very bitter future.
Fourthly, there is another peCUliarity to our revolution very active to the
present; it had to suffer an incredible amount of hostility and receive many
exceptional blows. Certainly no revolution is safe from the counter-strikes of the
power system dominatIng our world but the variety, the depth and the enormity of
the enmities and the wild anger unleashed against us for the last nine years is an
exceptionally interesting story to hear.
The revolution had not yet reached its climax when hostile behaviour mostly by
the united States of America started to challenge it. Certain officials, who
reveal secrets through the passage of time, now confess that in the last months of
the Shah's tyrannical regime the United States Administration, the President and
his national security adviser tried to hearten the Shah by encouraging him to be
"more decisive". The meaning of "decisiveness" was later explained in the
statements of a fellow called General Huyser who had come to Tehran as the special
representative of the President of the united States of America. In his opinion
and according to advice given to him, the Shah's regime had to be safeguarded even
if this resulted in the slaughtering of tens of thousands of people. And his
incredible justification was: "It would be preferable to the killing of many more
thousands later". In the honourable opinion of the United States authorities it
was not valid that if the united States did not interfere in the internal affairs
of Iran, neither the blood of tens of thousands then nor the blood of "many more
thousands later" had to be shed~
Certainly there was no other reason for the abortiveness of Huyser's mission
and his flight from Tehran as well as for the arrest or flight of all those
elements whom the United States needed for the carrying out of its evil plans
except the crushing ferocity of revolutionary waves and the great might of a nation
who had risen to fight" for God and feared nothing but God. It was not the enemies
of revolution who simply walked offJ it was the revolution that forced them to
flee. They had already exerted all their pressure at the hands of the treacherous
Shah.
After the victory of the revolution, hostile plots were hatched in a variety
of forms. The very first clever measure was the infiltration of revolutionary
posts and positions by enemy agents and the second was the organizing of all sorts
of "opposition" parties and groupings in a free, political atmosphere after decades
of dictatorship and suppression. In the former case it is interesting to note that
a loyal agent who, a few weeks after the revolution, was tried in a revolutionary
court and executed for treason had, by hook or by crook, got himself appointed as
the commander of the Air Force in the first days of the revolution! And in the
latter it would suffice to say that in the very first months after our victory some
400 political parties and groups surfaced in Iran that included anything from
Loyalist to Communist to separatist to Pan-Iranist. And it should not, of course,
be forgotten that certain foreign embassies in Tehran, especially the embassy of
the Arch-Satan, were the centres that organized some of these groups and helped
them financially and ideologically!
A bloody, merciless kind of terrorism was another avengeful hostility towards
our revolution. Terrorist groups who lacked any form of popular base, by stealing
arms and ammunition and explosive material, not a difficult job in those chaotic
days of revolution, and through the assistance of certain foreign governments,
established a vast, terrorist network in Iran.
Individual and group assassinations, colossal bomb explosions, the hijacking of
aircraft, kidnapping, horrible incidents of torture, indiscriminate shootings and
the deliberate slaughtering of people were among the measureS carried out in Iran
by some terrorist groups supported and encouraged by the infamous enemies of our
revolution. The victims of this barbarous violence represented all strata of
Iranian society: they included important leaders and authorities of the
revolution, as well as ordinary people such as the oppressed workers and toilers,
men and women and, of course, innocent children and passers-by.
Today, the leaders of these terrorist groups, who have often claimed
responsibility for their criminal actions, are given security and protection and
are provided with a comfortable life in the United States, France and some other
Western countries and go by the euphemism of "opposition to the Revolution": and
the countries that patronize these terrorists accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran
of "terrorism". An astonishing paradox of politics is that the innocent victims of
a blind, barbarous terrorism are themselves accused of "terrorism" by those who
helped establish these terrorist groups and are at present looking after them well.
As the President and servant of my country, and as a victim of a savage
terrorist attack, which was aborted by the will of the Almighty, I have the honour
to declare here that none of these brutalities, none of this shedding of blood,
could shake the will of our people despite the fact that the extent of the
terrorism was unprecedented: in one act alone, some 72 leading members and
administrators of the revolution, inclUding several cabinet ministers, a score of
deputies of parliament, and some irreplaceable personalities of our revolution,
such as Martyr Ayatollah Beheshti, died inhuman deaths, and in another incident the
President and the Prime Minister were blown to death together. But these brutal
atrocities have served only to strengthen the people's faith and trust in God and
Military coups d'etat are the traditional, sanguinary experiment in all
revolutions organized by the great Powers. In the case of the Iranian revolution
they were organized many times and in one case reached a very dangerous state. Had
it not been for our people's support and for the vigilance of our officials, the
predictions of the American General that there would be several blood-baths and the
massacre of millions of people would have materialized.
But the greatest, the most painful and the most catastrophic act of hostility
by our enemies was the imposition of war on our revolution, that is, the stirring
of the ambitious instincts of a neighbour, persuading it to invade and assuring it
of all sorts of assistance and support.
Today, after some seven years of war, it is quite clear to all that the
invasion of Iran by the Iraqi army on 22 September 1980, that is, 19 months after
the establishment of the Islamic Republic, was in fact aimed at defeating the
revolution and at the overthrow of the Islamic RepUblic. The invasion was carried
out with some 10 divisions and hundreds of fighter-bombers; they attacked from the
ground, from the air and from the sea. There were also such expansionist aims as
the annexing of a province of Iran, a fact that has frequently been confessed to in
the Iraqi press and pUblications as well as in articles by non-Iraqi paid pens.
The Iraqis have, more often than expected, declared both these goals openly and in
a revealing way.
What Iraq anticipated as a reward for this invasion, apart from the
stabilizing of its internal situation, was to emerge as the dominant Power in the
region or at least in the Arab sphere. This would have been a lot for the
nonentities ruling Iraq, Access to a considerable coastal border in the very
important Persian Gulf region was certainly another motive.
By an Iraqi victory which would accompany Iran's defeat, its disintegration
and the collapse of the Islamic Republic, the imperial-minded Powers would also
reach an important goal: the removal of a new system which had disturbed the
existing political-economic balance and put an end to the influence of big Powers,
especially that of the United States. In the event of our defeat, the
circumstances would be back to "normal" for the United States and some others, and
the same old story of political and economic influence would be repeated.
We were at first taken by surprise, we should admit. Our preoccupation with
innumerable internal problems relating to the revolution and our lack of sufficient
experience made the invasion possibie; but the particular characteristics of this
revolution came to our rescue: within a few months the heroic, miraculous efforts
and sacrifices of our people and their armed forces had resulted in the liberation
of a large part of the occupied territories. Nevertheless, the catastrophio
effects of this invasion are beyond description: prosperous cities such as Abadan,
Khorramshahr, Hovaizeh and Oasre-Shirin were razed to the ground; even the small
city of Dezful was hit by some 250 ground-to-ground missiles; numerous happy
villages of which not even a half-smashed wall is left; factories that were turned
into piles of metal rUbble; numerous farms that were wiped out; invaluable cultural
monuments that have been seriously damaged; and, most important of all, the
innocent people who lost their precious lives.
The committing of war crimes, such as savage attacks against civilian,
residential areas; the massacre of thousands of defenceless women and children, the
imprisonment of passengers and passers-by on the occupied roads - all in the first
weeks of the war - violations of international commitments and regulations, such as
the use of chemical weapons on a large scale, air attacks on commercial ships,
civilian aircraft and passenger aeroplanes and trains, are Bome examples of acts on
the part of the Iraqi regime in the course of this war that have been identified
but are continuing.
After the initial war efforts, when the people of Iran had time to think over
and sum up the events, they realized a very bitter fact, namely that security based
on the promises and commitments of a warmongering aggressor has no validity and
that trusting in such security is illogical and very naive.
The Head of the Iraqi regime had publicly announced that its Agreement with
the Iranian Gover'nment in 1975, otherwise known as the Algiers Agreement, was
signed at a time when Iraq was weak, and therefore it was not binding or valid any
more. He tore a copy of the Agreement to pieces and a few days later invaded Iran.
This was a bitter but enlightening lesson for the Iranian nation. From that
moment on, our people, awakened and revolutionary, took a decision and set a clear
objective for their efforts. They decided not only to liberate the occupied
territories and seek war compensation - to both of which they are unambiguously
mtitled, despite the fact that they could not be compensated for a great part of
the damages- but also, as a more important goal, to punish and remove the
aggressor.
(President Khamenei)
By proposing the punishment of the aggressor we have sought not only a secure
base for our national security but also security and stability throughout the
region. If an aggressor is once punished by the in terna tional family of na tions
for its aggression, we can rest assured that the aggressor instinct, which is often
found in evi1 and oppor tun istic elements, will be suppressed for many year s to
come, and our region, and perhaps the whole world, will not have to suffer the
catastrophic consequences of unprovoked aggressive wars.
The Nuremberg Trials have guaranteed some 40 years of peace and secur ity for
the war-addicted European States. Why should we discard the experience of
Nuremberg?
When thousands of square kilometres of our country were under occupation, the
big Powers, exploiting their powerful weapons of publicity, put us under very heavy
pressure to accept a cease-fire in return for the forma tion of a commi ttee that
would arrange for the invader to return to international borders. This would have
mean tour leav ing par t of our exis tence, our honour and our dign i ty under the feet
of the enemy and soHci ting the a tten Hon of this or tha t in terna tional commi t tee
in the hope of r ega ining our in tegr i ty. Ther e could have been no bigger insul t to
the intelligence of an honourable revolutionary nation. Even the least informed
people in the world have the sanguinary tragedy of the Palestinian people before
their eyes and would reject such tyrannical proposals. If imposed cease-fires and
deceitful, empty promises had restored the legitimate and obvious rights of the
Palestinian nation, they might also help others to regain theirs.
In our case, even today, when we have liberated the largest part of the
occupied lands through the heroic effor ts of our people and at the cost of their
precious blood, with some parts such as Naft-Shahr still under occupation, we
believe that our most important task is to punish the aggressor. And today, when
important than ever and believe that wi thout punishment of the aggressor any other
achievement would be a loss for our people. As a nation which has borne the
burden of a seven-year war, we long more than anybody else for peace, but we
believe that that peace, a lasting peace, can be established only with punishment
of an aggressor who has added many other sins to the original sin of aggression
since it started the war.
Today, as in 1975, Iraq is again in a weak position and everyone knows this.
The kind of peace approved by the Ir aqi reg ime today would, after a few years or
whenever it s\lSpected itself to be in a strong position, evaporate in a TOOment, and
another war would engulf the region. The only guarantee for the future is
punishment of the aggressor.
Peace is, without a doubt, a beautiful and attractive word. This is so true
that e'len the biggest international warmongers and the producers of weapons for
global destruction flirt with it and love it hypocritically. But, in our opinion,
justice, a word that the powerfUl and the oppressors regard with fearful caution,
is even more important and more beautiful.
The number of those who have given up their well- being, their peace and their
life to secure justice is not small. These people are always recognized as great
heroes. European ci ties still take pr ide in their resistance against Hi tler's
aggression; Moscow still prides itself on a self-burning that astonished and
disappointed Napoleon's army and Leningrad on its four-year-long resistance when
besieged by the Na2i invaders.
The United Nations in particular has an obligation, according to the very
first Ar Hcle of its Char ter, to secure justice through the special process of
taking measures against acts of aggression. And this is all that we expect from
the world and from the Uni ted Nations.
The big Power shave hypoer i tically called the war imposed on us a mean ingless
war, but at the same time they have consistently supported the initiator of and
aggressor in this war politically, militarily and economically.
There is no doubt that starting such wars is always meaningless, but as long
as the aggressor was still hoping to achieve its evil end it was never called that.
Today, however, this war is very meaningful for our peoplet it means
selfless, heroic efforts to eradicate aggression and prove that nations have the
power, in the face of the will of the big Powers, to defend their revolution, their
stability and their integrity. Our nation, through a great deal of sacrifice, is
engaged in rejecting a concept that has always resulted in aggression and wart the
concept that reliance on advanced weapons and the support of the big Powers is a
guarantee of success.
In the last seven years the Iranian people have searched for the answer to an
important question. Today I want to raise this question here from this rostrum.
Why have all those Gaver nmen ts that know very clear ly that it was the Iraqi regime
that started the war and initiated aggression - and there is no scarcity of those
that know this - chosen to remain silent vis-a-vis this great international crime?
And why have the world mass media tended to ignore their great responsibility to
the conscience of mankind and the interpretation of history in this case?
Perhaps the key to the solution of this problem lies in the particular
political relationships in our world today and the defective geometry created by
the domination of the big Powers in international relations. However, our people
seem to have discovered the facts.
But the question to which no convincing answer may be found is this; why has
the Secur i ty Council of the Uni ted Na tions, as an organ tha t was er ea ted pr imar ill'
to safeguard international security and oppose aggression, totally ignored its
I think everyone knows that the Security Council did not show any reaction
when Iraq invaded Iran on 1,OOO-kilometre front. The Iraqi army overran
international borders in only a week and established itself at points ranging from
70 to 90 kilometres inside Iran. Some Iraqi authorities announced that their army
intended to stay there for ever.
It was only after the establishment of this invasion that the Security council
issued its first resolution, on 28 September 1980. This resolution neither
mentioned any aggression or occupation nor made a request for a return to
international borders, but, astonishingly enough, called on both parties not to
resort to any further use of force. What this really meant was total connivance in
the occupation of the affected areas and a reauest to the Iraai army not to advance
further. And as far as Iran was concerned, it called on our people to stop
fighting against the aggressor.
This was the very first measure by the Security Council, in which it trampled
upon all its principal obligations concerning the safeguarding of international
peace and security in an ugly, tragic manner.
After that, a deadly silence fell upon the Security Council for a long time -
that is, up to the liberation of Khorramshahr through a military operation that
broke the back of the occupation army and resulted in the humiliating capture of
thousands of enemy soldiers and officers. Yet, up to that time, the Security
Council had completely forgotten about the bloody, continuing war that headed the
international news bulletins every day.
Thus the Security Council SUddenly remembered the Iran-Iraq war again. A few
weeks after the liberation of Khorramshahr the Security Council's second
resolution, dated 12 July 1982, was adopted. Now the Council called for a return
to international borders. What it reauested had already begn achieved because our
heroic people and their selfless and valiant combatants had by then liberated the
greater part of the occupied lands. This resolution, 'too, was conspicuous for its
many omissions: no reference to aggression; no mention of the aggressor; nothing
about destruction, damages or any compensation; no guarantee of real security and
(President Rhamenei)
stability and not a word about punishing the agent of insecurity. The Council had
chosen to be silent in its resolution about all those vital points.
Therefore, once again, we found ourselves quite alone in restoring our
legitimate rights, and I must inform the Assembly that the security Council's
stance in relation to the war that was imposed upon us has not changed up to this
moment.
Of course, the Secretary-General's independent initiatives went some way
towards helping the united Nations in the realization of its objectives, but his
good offices were not appreciated. I ought, however, to register a thankful note
here for his efforts and his good offices. It would also be appropriate to
remember the good name of the late Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Olaf Palme, who, as
the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, sympathetically tried to help.
The Secretary-General's trip to Tehran and the useful talkS regarding Security
Council resolution 598 (1987) were another step in that direction. We consider
those talks objective and instructive, as is the report of the Secretary-General.
Regrettably, it seems that some influential members of the Security Council wish to
ignore that fact. They are the same members as have from the outset attempted to
exploit that resolution as a means of exerting pressure on the Islamic Republic of
Iran. We have conveyed our uneauivocal views to the Secretary-General and expect
the Council to use correctly the possihlities open to it.
Has the Security Council anything to say regarding the infringement of its
very first obligation, to take measures against acts of aggression, which is stated
in the first Chapter of the Charter to be the most important objective? What
pressures has the Security Council brought to bear on Iraq in relation to
threatening peace, breach of the peace and resort to force as mentioned in
Chapter VII?
Impartiality is the least that the Islamic Republic of Iran - a victim of a
bloody, devastating aggression - can expect from the Security Council, because we
all know that the Council's obligation is to take measures against acts of
aggression and to support the victim of aggression, rather than remain neutral
between the aggressor and the victim. But can the Security Council even claim that
it has behaved impartially in this case?
Our feeling is that the Security Council has been pushed into this indecent,
condemnable position by the will of some big Powers, particUlarly the united
States. Therefore, one may say that the foundations of the security supported by
such a Security Council is nothing but a nice-looking house of cards. The nations
of the world, especially the peoples of the third world, who wish to remain
independent of the super-Powers, may never have the security guaranteed by such a
Security Council.
The fact that Iraq was never condemned for aggression has not only helped keep
the imposed war going but also fanned its flames.
And now, with the united States presence in the region and the presence of
other countries that have followed as a result of the arch-satan's insistenc~ and
pressure, the Persian Gulf has turned into a dangerous powder-keg.
At this juncture I must draw the attention of the General Assembly and the
people of the united States urgently to the very grave and immediate danger
provoked by the united States Administration through its latest action in the
Persian Gulf, which is threatening not only the region but the whole world.
Yesterday united States battleships attacked Iran Ajr, an Iranian merchant ship.
They murdered four people and wounded three. The ship was seized and its crew
detained. American television stations announced yesterday that united States
battleships fired at this ship while it was laying mines in the waters, and
thereby, as usual, told a pack of lies to the American people. But I declare here
that the ship was a merchant vessel called Iran Ajr, not a military speedboat.
This is the beginning of a series of events the bitter consequences of which
will not be restricted to the Persian Gulf, and the United States, as the initiator
of the trouble, will bear responsibility for all ensuing events. Should we now
believe the passionate United States claims of a desire for peace and tranquillity
in the Persian Gulf or this open, flagrant and concrete measure to ~an the flames
of war? I declare, very unambiguously, that the United States will receive a
proper response to this abominable act.
Th is is only one of the evil cons equences of the imposed war and a d irec t
result of the Security Council's inability to take proper measures against the
Iraqi aggression. If the security Council had condemned Iraq for starting the war,
and later, for starting the so-called war of the cities, and later, for attacking
shi ps, today the Uni ted Sta tes would not dare threa ten in terna tional peace and
security so openly in spite of world public opinion, despite pressures from inside,
and immedia tely after the adoption of resolu tion 598 (1987) for the prepara tion and
adoption of which the Un i ted Sta tes had played a key role. Was resolution
598 (1987) only adopted to put pressure on the Islamic RepUblic of Iran?
I must here announce to the world and especially to the great people of t.he
United States that the threatening, military presence of the United States in the
Persian Gulf is yet. another clear manifestation of the American regime's hostility
towards the Iran ian people.
A big chapter of our history, a very bitter, bloody and evil chapter, is
saturated with American enmities and grudging hostilities towards our nation~ some
25 years of support for the Pahlavi butcher and dictator, complicity with the Shah
in all his crimes against our people, participation in plundering the wealth of the
nation, serious confrontation with our revolution in the last months of the Shah's
regime, persuading the dictator to suppress the millions-strong demonstrations of
our peopl e, employing all sor ts of means and devices to obs tr uct th e pa th of
revolution in the first years of our victory, the constant, pr0\7ocative contacts of
the united States embassy in Tehran with counter-revolutionary elements, continuous
help and assistance to terrorists and counter-revolutionaries outside Iran,
freezing of the people's assets and property, non-deliverance of commodities that
had been already paid for, non-payment of assets taken from the pUblic treas ury by
(President Khamenei)
the Shah and deposi ted in his own name in American banks, efforts for an economic
blockade of Iran and the formation of a united Western front against our people,
flagrant and effective support of Iraq in its war against us and now the bullying
and illogical tactic of throw ing an Amer ican armada in to the Per alan Gulf and
seriously endanger ing peace and tranqu illi ty of the region.
These are parts of our nation's indictment against the United States
administration, an indictment that will bring under question all American claims
for peace-loving and all statements by Americn leaders declaring their good
intentions towards the Islamic Republic, which are apparently meant for internal
consumption.
The latest in the long list of American hostilities towards our nation was the
bloody massacre of innocent, defenceless pilgrims at Mecca in the holy sanctuary of
God at the hands of the Saudi regime where some 400 Iranian and non-Iranian
pilgrims, mostly women, were martyred and a greater number were beaten, injured or
maimed. There are certain indications that the United States played an influential
part in this unprecedented, historical monstrosity.
Do the United States administration and its Saudi stooges have any convincing
eKplanation for the slaughtering of so many innocent men and women?
Undoubtedly the culpri ts will try to just! fy their ell il actions wi th some
eKcuses and allegations but the nature of the incident with some 400 dead visitors
mostly women on the one side and the local police armed with machine-<3uns, clubs
and poison gas on the other is very revealing.
Although blood that is shed wrongly at the hands of cruel, merciless tyrants
will carry its clear message with it, not only for today but for all times, and
will reveal the evil nature of the butchers, the Mecca incident also demonstrates
the co-ordina ted behaviour of the uni ted Sta tes and the Arab reactionar iea and
unveils the secret co-operation of the two sides in the Persian Gulf region. This
gives the incident an international dimension that must be carefully looked at by
international forums.
I must emphasize here that this indictment is directed against the leaders of
the United States regime and not against the American people who, had they been
aware of what their governments have done against another nation, would certainly
endorse our indictment.
Our people have shOlilln that they have faith in their goals and are ready to
defend them at the cost of their 1 ives.
Such a nation has no fear of the united States or any other POliIIer and with the
help of God it will prove that victory belongs to truth and the believers in truth.
This was the story of our revolution. This revolution brought great hopes for
nations which suffered from the oppression of the imperial-minded Powers, equally
it provoked the violent hostility of the big POliIIers which seek to dominate the
world. This storm 0 f oppes i tion, however, could no t br eak off the young tree 0 f
th is revolution because of its very deep roots. The tree was growing fast but it
did withstand some very strong, damaging storms. And now the revolution is still
alive despite the opposition of the big powers and it shall certainly survive; that
is the dictate of divine traditions in history and it shall not be altered. And
that is our most v iv id and emphatic message.
The system of domination had relentlessly tr ied to prove the contrary in order
to make the nations of the third world believe that their fate is decided by the
will of the big Powers. We have rejected and repudiated it. There is no doubt
that the sys tem of world domination did not wish the Islamic Republic to sur"ive
but our will overcame.
(President Khamenei)
Our message to all nations and Governments which wish to remain independent
and ignore the wishes of the big Power s is to rely on their CMn people wi thout any
fear.
The message of our revolution remains as it was~ the rejection of the
doctrine of domination. Today our world is in fact divided among the big,
imperial-minded Powers. They believe that they are the masters and owners of the
world. In other words the world is divided into dominator and dominated parts and
the domina~rs decide on the fa te of the dominated. The system of wor Id domination
feeds on the existence of unequal relations between the two parts. The system of
world domination arbitrarily rejects revolution and creates problems for
revolutionary regimes. Nicaragua and the countries of southern Africa are a few
liv ing examples.
The system of world domination decides for peoples against their will. The
innocent Palestinian nation is a perfect case and Afghanistan is another. The
system of world domination fiddles with human ideas and concepts, changes and
distorts them at will and tries to inject the distorted meanings into people's
minds~ terrorism and human rights' are two such manipulated concepts.
The system of world domination is bold enough openly and directly to invade
such countries as have aroused its anger. The United' States invasion of Libya and
Grenada are two recent examples.
The system of world domination makes decisions for the whole world and all
nations. Yesterday it was Hiroshima and today the President of the united States
is proud of the horrendous behaviour of his predecessors and even argues that if
they did not kill those several thousands, more people would have been killed
throughout the world! The President of the United States does have a soft spot in
his heart for all mankind - is he not the godfather of mankind?
The system of world domination supports fascist and racialist regimes such as
the ones in Israel and South Africa and employs them as bloodthirsty, armed agents
to bUlly the oppressed nations. Muslim Lebanon, patiently resisting the criminal
aggressions of Zionists, and the African front-line states are good examples.
The system of world domination considers that it has the right to put pressure
on international organizations; the Security Council and the united Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are living examples.
The system of world domination believes that its own interests are absolute
and the interests of others are non-existent. A good example of this is the
dangerous, peace-threatening presence of American battleships in the Persian Gulf
that have come to "defend America's interests" while completely disregarding the
interests of the countries of the region.
The system of world domination has, above all, the propaganda machine and the
mass media of the world in its hands, distorts all the facts and gives a humane
image to its satanic behaviour and in this way escapes confrontation with world
public opinion.
(President Khamenei)
We believe that the nations and Governments of the third world as well as the
peoples of the dominator countries should not tolerate this evil order of things.
The big Powers must be told to go back home and leave the affairs of the world to
its peoples. We must tell them: you are not anybody's legal guardians:
In the united Nations there are two unjustified distinctions - the right of
veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. These must be removed. And
their removal would indeed turn the United Nations into a truly popular
organization in which all problems may be solved. Otherwise the Security Council
will remain, as it is today, a paper factory for issuing worthless and ineffective
orders. And the peoples of the world will continue to think that there is no place
for settling international problems and that the only option left is to use
violence.
Under these circumstances our message to the Governments of the third world,
as long as the system of domination remains, is to unite with each other. This is
the only way to become stronger. The Powers dominating our world do not value
anything but power and we must speak with them in the only language they
understand, the language of strength.
The awakening of peoples and their awareness of the nature and function of the
system of domination is the strongest support for the third world Governments and a
source of real strength to resist the dominating Powers. The leaders of these
Governments will have nobody to help them except the will, the power and the ideas
of their own peoples.
The union we propose to the third world countries is not a pact for fighting
the big PowersJ it will be a union for our own defence and the prevention of the
usurpation of our legitimate rights.
The dominating Powers are also the big agents for dissemination and
justification of corruption: moral corruption, sexual corruption and ideological
corruption. The political, economic and espionage motives of the big Powers are
the true perpetuators of these moral perversions. And the fact is that in our
world today, which includes the nations of the big Powers too, moral values have
been discarded, the foundation of the family has been weakened, alcoholism and
addiction to drugs have become rampant and spirituality and morality have become
least appealing.
We must start a tough campaign against corruption in our own countries. We
must strengthen the foundation of the family and make this original school of man a
home of affection, sincerity, love and spirituality. We must safeguard the rights
and values of women. On this last issue, we must revise all the standards that
were created by the system of domination and in order to liberate women from the
humility of being "sex objects N that the dominant, Western culture has in practice
imposed on them. Women as scientists, politicians, directors and managers,
partners and mothers must be welcome but their exploitation as objects for
pleasure, lechery and commercials should be rejected. This will help restore the
dignity and personality of half of humanity and re-establish the lasting and holy
foundation of the family.
These are some of the messages of our revolution, not only for those eager to
listen but also for those who can decide to listen to the truth and to welcome
fairness and justice.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the important statement has has just
made.
Hojjat-ul-Islam seyed Ali Khamenei, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
(President Khamenei)