Speech [The multifarious interference of America in the internal affairs of Iran]

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

In Carter's opinion this aggressive democracy in Iran is such that opposition has arisen left and right; and he still maintains that he has no intention of interfering in Iran's internal affairs. He has also mentioned before that he (Shah) has established a progressive society in Iran. Carter has made three statements: one is that the Shah has moved quickly and decisively to establish democratic principles in Iran and this, he says, has been the cause of opposition from the leftists and the conservatives; another is that the Shah has formed a progressive society in Iran; and in the third statement he once again repeats that he has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran. Now the Iranians themselves must study these remarks and decide whether they have been made for them, for a Western audience, for the American people or for people on another planet!

Well, let us look at his first statement that the Shah has moved aggressively to establish democratic principles in Iran. Has the situation in the country changed from the time that he opened his eyes in his cradle to an Iran ruled by his father to the time that he himself, upon the orders of the foreigners and Allies, assumed power and began his rule? Does this democracy which he has moved aggressively to implement, or this freedom that he has granted the people" quickly and decisively," include all these deeds that he has perpetrated throughout his reign?

Which of the many Parliaments, the National Consultative Assembly, as they call it, and the Senate, that have come into existence throughout the whole Pahlavi era- and I have witnessed events from the inception of the Pahlavi rule- have been selected by the people, as is their right, to determine their destiny? When have the people ever voted in a free and fair referendum? During which of these two Pahlavi periods, and especially this most recent period when this man has moved quickly to establish democracy, have the members of Parliament truly represented the people? Isn't it the case that they are ordered into Parliament? The people believe that it is the Shah who gives the orders as to who should enter Parliament, but the reality is that the foreigners give the orders. They give a list of the names of those they want to enter Parliament! The Shah has said himself on several occasions that although this practice is not observed now; it was at one time that the embassies provided a list of the names of their chosen delegates, that is those who served them not the people, and he had to oblige them! But now of course the Shah claims that we are no longer subservient to any power. It is the indisputable right of the people to be able to vote freely and to send the delegate of their choice to Parliament, a right which all the world recognizes and which forms the basis of democracy. The destiny of a nation lies in the hands of the representatives in Parliament, and the people themselves should be able to determine their own destiny, indeed the constitutional law has given this right to the people. From the time that the present Shah assumed power, or rather was brought to power, to the present day, has this democracy of his, which according to Carter he implemented aggressively, ever granted the people this indisputable, manifest right of theirs? Have we ever had a representative in the Parliament who truly represented the people? You can go to any city in Iran and ask the person there who the person is who represents them in Parliament, what kind of a person he is. It is a well-known fact that most of the people in Iran do not even know who represents them in Parliament! This nation should determine its own fate, should appoint its own representatives, but most of the people do not know who is representing them When you tell them their names, they mean nothing to them! This `aggressive democracy' has robbed the nation of their indisputable, manifest right!

Try to find even one city where the people voted freely for their representatives! Take Tehran for example, this is the capital, the political hub of the country, if there is freedom then surely it is to be found there. But none of these Tehran delegates has reached Parliament through the free voting of the people. This is no secret, it is a well-known fact. So who is Mr. Carter making these remarks for? The people on the planet Jupiter who know nothing about this world, or for the people on this planet? If he is speaking for the latter, then where in the world isn't it known (that there is no freedom and democracy in Iran)? Which one of the world's newspapers is not informed of this? Yes, perhaps many of them write in support of Mr. Carter and say that democracy and freedom do exist in the country, that the people have selected their delegates through their votes, but they are aware that this is not true, just as Mr. Carter is. Mr. Carter knows what kind of a person this Shah is. He knows only too well what kind of person has been given the mission; he knows the problems the people have to face.

This covered one aspect of freedom and democracy: the indisputable right of the people to vote. Now let's take a look at another: freedom of the press. Whatever the newspapers of Iran wrote, they did so on the orders of" His Imperial Majesty Aryamehr;" they never voiced the opinions of the people; they simply sang the praises of the Shah. The press now says that they were never free! Even the regime's own newspapers now say that they have never been free to write what they wanted. They are not allowed to be free even now. Throughout the years of his reign- we are not concerned with that of his father here, which was either worse than this or just the same- when has he ever allowed freedom of the press? Which one of the newspapers that Iran has had from the very beginning of his reign, when the Allies bestowed the monarchy upon him and imposed him on the Iranian nation, has been free and it was His Imperial Majesty who made it free? He says that now he has granted freedom of the press, but what about a year ago? If now he says he has made it free, then obviously we did not have freedom of the press a year ago.

So he is a criminal; he's a traitor. Even according to the logic of Carter, this man who wants to make him appear innocent and exempt from blame; he is a traitor! Carter says that the Shah has now moved aggressively to implement democracy and this is the source of opposition to him. But he has only recently decided to grant the nation this quick, decisive democracy, as the Shah himself said:" We want to grant freedom to the nation." Will no one stand up and ask him:" Who are you to grant freedom to the people? Now you want to grant it- their freedom that is guaranteed by the Constitution- to them?! Who are you to grant freedom?" Your rule is illegal; you should never have ruled. Even if we suppose that your rule is legal, all the time that you have sat on your usurped throne, you have governed, never was any government in the country empowered to do anything. You did it all. Thus the responsibility for all the crimes lies on your shoulders. Carter says that he has now granted freedom to the people and implemented an aggressive democracy; this means that freedom and democracy did not exist previously, and the country was administered through force. This is in itself a crime and according to the law the person who bears all the responsibility, the Shah, should be tried before the people. He should not be allowed to escape; he should be grabbed and put on trial for all the bloodshed he has caused and for depriving the people of their freedom. He should be made to answer for his crimes.

The newspapers in the country then were never free and neither were the radio and television, the two other mediums used for propaganda purposes. These two organs were never allowed to speak the truth either. When the Shah violates the law, when he murders the people, can they say that the Shah has done this? When have the media dared to say that the Shah gives the commands. Even now they say that it is the government which is responsible, or it is the fault of the police or due to martial law. This is all nonsense. It is this man's fault. Even in defeat, he continues with his deeds. The police are not concerned about the people's demonstrations; they are ordered to stop them. They all say they are just carrying out orders. Those we spoke to after the attack on the Faydiyyah Madrasah «1» in Qum, when the students were beaten and some even killed, told us that the attack was carried out on the orders of `His Imperial Majesty'; even the police in Qum said this. And this was the truth; he ordered the attack and up until the present day all the atrocities that have been perpetrated in this country have been done so on the orders of `His Imperial Majesty'. No one else is responsible other than him. This relates to his radio and television; these are instances of his propaganda.

Carter says that the Shah has given the people a" quick freedom" and a" quick democracy!" He has given the people so much freedom now that they have had enough and are shouting out against it because his democracy has been so quick! Everyone is complaining to the Shah, their argument being that he wants to grant freedom and they are opposed to this, they do not want it! What these people really mean when they take to the streets and call for" freedom and independence" is that they do not want freedom and independence! The Shah wants to give them freedom and independence but they are shouting that it is not what they want! They are showing their opposition in this way! This interpretation issues from what we read in the newspapers. Carter has said that because the Shah has moved aggressively to establish democratic principles this has been the source of much opposition to him from all the people. Because he has granted freedom now the different political groups and the various factions are opposed to it and are asking:" Why have you granted us freedom?!" The people too oppose him for giving them freedom! This is Carter's logic concerning the freedom, which the Shah has given the nation.

Now, what about this progressive country he has created, this progressive attitude he has toward social problems?! Mr. Carter claims that the Shah has set his country on the road to progress and that this has been another source of opposition to him; that this has always been a source of opposition to him! Mr. Carter's understanding of the meaning of progress seems to be totally different from ours. Otherwise, how can a country in which everything has been destroyed be described as progressive? Wherever you look in the country you can see what the Shah has brought about by the tenets of this `White Revolution' «2» of his, as he calls it. According to him, his White Revolution has destroyed the feudal relationship, which existed between the landlord and the peasant, indeed he says landlords and peasants no longer exist! There are, as he has repeated on numerous occasions, only villagers and free men and free women! But in fact these villagers, these poor people are those who have lost all their means of livelihood (because of this White Revolution). These" land reforms" have completely destroyed the country's agriculture. You no longer have agriculture in your country. Agricultural production in the country is now only sufficient to meet the needs of the nation for thirty-three days of the year; food has to be imported from abroad to satisfy the demand for the rest of the year.

As for these other institutions that he has set up, the Literacy Corps, «3» the I-do not-know-what corps, the Religious Corps, the people know why they have been created, they know why this Literacy Corps has been sent into the rural areas: to sing the praises of the Shah, to spread falsehoods, to keep the people backward, to make the people believe that they should all obey the Shah and that" the command of God and the command of the Shah" are one and the same. Everything that this man has done in the country has driven it further and further into a state of backwardness. He does not allow a virtuous person to exist in our country, he is afraid of true human beings, he is afraid that if a virtuous person is found he will stand up to him and his regime and ask them why they are doing these things. This is why they do not let the people select their own representatives because they know that the elected representatives would stand up to them and question what they do in the country. They know that elected representatives would not let the government do just whatever it wanted, they would interpolate. They would not let the Shah do whatever he wanted, they would stop him, they would object, they would ask him to explain. So obviously he won't allow the people to send their own representatives to the Parliament.

Where is this progressive country, this progressive society that we do not know about, that we have not been told about? Where has he caused this country to prosper? He has turned this country into nothing other than a base for others; he has allowed others to dominate us. America is now involved in all aspects of our lives. Is this what you call a" progressive country?" The first sign of progress in a country lies in its independence, in it being able to stand on its own feet. Is our country independent? [America] dictates to us from one direction and [the Soviet Union] from the other. America digs its claws deep into the depths of our oil wells while the Soviet Union does the same to our gas supplies. In what way is this country progressive? Which one of our universities is progressive? Where is our culture progressive? Do we have a progressive army? Can an army which is under the command of American advisers be called our army?

According to the way Carter thinks, surrendering everything the country has to him represents progress! Of course, Carter, who is an oil-devourer, must say that the country has progressed. He wants the oil; he is devouring our oil; of course, he must say such things.

Now let's move on to Carter's third remark. Of course all three of his remarks demand more explanation than this, but you yourselves know enough about these matters and so it is not called for here. His third remark was that America has no intention of interfering in the affairs of Iran. So, Mr. Carter, you claim you have no intention of interfering? In what have you not interfered? What are your military advisers doing in our army? Why have they come here? To do what? Who has set up these bases in the mountains of Iran? For whom have they been set up? Does this not constitute interference in the affairs of our country? Are not these remarks of yours in themselves a form of interference? Is it not you who oblige the Shah to destroy the country in this manner? Do you not interfere in the affairs of the country at all? The Shah himself has said that lists of names were given to the regime. Of course, now he claims that this practice does not occur any more, but he's lying, even now these lists are sent to the regime. Even now the parliamentary delegates are[ selected ]from their lists." I will not interfere!" You are talking about a country in which the people are aware of their situation; they know what is being done to their country and what has befallen them." I will not interfere!" Why is he saying that he won't interfere? The Iranians know that he interferes, the world's media know that Mr. Carter, and whoever becomes president in America, will interfere in the affairs of our country and prevent us from standing on our own two feet.

We have no independence; we are not free; the people are in no way free and the press is still not free. Martial law does not allow the press to speak out. Why do not these newspapers, that now claim to enjoy freedom, write about what the Shah is doing? If you look at all the newspapers, there is not one word written therein which says that the person perpetrating all these crimes is the Shah himself.[He is] the one who has committed these crimes from the beginning of his rule until the present time. The day that the pillars of this regime crumble, the press will speak out, but for now they are not brave enough because now the country is under the control of martial-law, which will either close down the newspaper that speaks out or execute its employees.

How can you claim that there is freedom and progress? It's ridiculous to say that this opposition has come about because the Shah wishes to give the people freedom and set the country on the road to progress. Is Carter really saying that all this uproar the people are creating in the streets, all their cries of protest, are because the Shah wants to give them freedom and they do not want it! What a ridiculous statement to be made by anyone, let alone the President of a country! They have written about this in the newspapers and no one remarks on its absurdity. It appears that these are simply idle remarks, because everyone knows about the situation in Iran.

All our problems are caused by the heads of these nations, the heads of these governments. All these disasters, which occur in Iran and in Eastern countries, are brought about by the heads of these so-called superpowers. These powerful countries seek to dominate the weaker nations and rob them of their natural wealth, meaning that the weak should work and surrender to the powerful. They devour their oil while the weak nation goes hungry; they exhaust their mines while the people go hungry; the people live on these large oil deposits yet they go hungry. This is the logic of these great" superpowers" such as the Soviet Union and America and the like. This is how they want it to be, but we do not want it to be like this.

Illegal agreements

Our first step must be to change the present situation in Iran. The Shah, the government, the ministers and the representatives have all been imposed on this nation, the people did not select their representatives; the members of the Senate have not been appointed by the people to the extent that they should have been. When the Parliament has been appointed without the vote and consent of the people, then it is not legal because according to the constitutional law, the Parliament should be voted for by the people. If the Parliament is illegal then the ministers that are appointed, the Prime Minister who is appointed, are also illegal, and all the agreements that they sign with other countries, no matter what kind of agreements they are, be they oil or arms agreements, are null and void. All of this is against the constitution because it is against the law.