Thanks for inviting me. It's a great pleasure to be here.
We are here to see how we can help Iran's democratic movement. That's the basic concern and question. For that reason, let me briefly say a few words about the nature of Iran's democratic movement as I see it. Then I will be more than happy to have a dialogue with you in the question-and-answer part.
What is happening these days is an authentic grassroots, bottom-up, social and political movement for democracy and human rights. It's a civil rights movement. It's not a velvet revolution; it's not even a revolution. It's a truly authentic social-political movement, and a popular one. This movement is at least a century old in Iran. It began with the 1905 Constitutional Revolution. In the 1950s came Mossadegh's movement for establishing a parliamentary democracy and nationalizing the oil industry; in 1979 came the anti-despotic movement, and then the 1997 reform movement, and just recently the unprecedented and unique green movement of June 2009.
We are all aware of this great history, but let me share a few words with you on the major lessons one needs to learn from such an impressive wave of democratic movement.
The first lesson is that Iran has always been at the forefront of progressive movements in the Middle East, and I think this is very important. Iran has always been a pioneer of change, of radical paradigm shift, in this region. In 1905 Iran was the first country in the region to fight for a constitutional monarchy. In the 1950s, Iran, under the leadership of Mohammad Mossadegh, had the first anti-colonial nationalist movement in the region and established a secular liberal democracy. In 1979 the great revolution brought together all forces against the Shah's despotism and imperialism.
Of course, post-revolutionary politics were different. In many ways, post-revolutionary politics betrayed the actual goals of the revolution. In 1997 the children of the revolution actually challenged the authorities, the Islamic Republic of Iran; basically, they challenged the authority in the electoral process. It was the first attempt, a very peaceful attempt, to challenge the Islamic hard-liners. Recently, in June 2009, once again the people used the only possible venue to voice their minimum demands, and we know what happened then.
This is simply to suggest that we have at least a one-century-old movement for democracy, human rights, and social justice in Iran, so this is not simply new.
The second lesson, very briefly, that one needs to draw from Iran's waves of democracy and democratization is that, in my opinion, the solution comes from within. We should really believe in the people. Unfortunately, if we look at the history of Iran, in many cases, if not all, most often external forces were, if not destructive, not really helpful to the waves of democratic movement in Iran. There were Russia and Britain in 1905; Britain, the U.S., and the Soviets in the 1950s; the United States in the 1970s; the United States under President George Bush and the neo-conservatives in 1997; and in 2009 there were other external forces.
The realpolitik of some western countries that simply don't care much about democracy and human rights as a first priority when it comes to economic and political interests are definitely a major obstacle. It's good to know that it was neither the President George Bush regime change policy, economic sanctions, nor even boycotting the election that contributed to this democratic movement. It was people's participation, and people's participation from within will guarantee the success of this movement.
So if this is the case, we should say no to military attacks on Iran by western countries or even hard-liner Israelis. We should say no to economic sanctions on Iran, because they would simply be a collective punishment. In any kind of military attack the first casualty would be the Iranian people and the democratic movement, because the hard-liners would simply use this militarization of politics and play the nationalist card.
We should say yes to putting human rights on the agenda of the negotiations and dialogue with Iran. The focus and attention should not be on Iran's nuclear ambitions or the regime's rhetoric toward Israel and even the Holocaust, because that is exactly what the hard-liners want. They want to shift the focus and attention away from the democratic movement and human rights to a more nationalistic agenda.
In my view, the west should not play in this field and should not play with this card of the hard-liners. I understand this is difficult, but that's the first and foremost priority of Iran. The Iranian democratic movement needs the social, moral, and spiritual support of western society's governments and NGOs. But it will be harmed by any kind of military attack or economic sanction.
I should stop there. I will be happy to share my thoughts with you on the questions asked.