In the present speech, Imam Khomeini (may God grant him peace) discusses the call of America and other Western governments for the “necessity to observe human rights “ In rejecting this call as mendacious, Imam emphasises “ All this talk about human rights and this Declaration of Human Rights is just a way for them to devour these weak governments and justify their action Do not think that the Declaration of Human Rights is a

Reality

In another part of his speech, Imam points to the support expressed by Carter and the White House spokesperson for the establishment of a military government saying “ Does Carter not know what he is saying’ Does the White House spokesperson speak without understanding’ Do they lack knowledge of the situation and thus speak in this manner”

Imam Khomeini’s harsh criticism was spurred by the fact that a few days after the establishment of Azhari’s military government, Brzezinski, the American National Security Adviser announced that the Shah’s actions were supported by Carter and the American government, and Brzezinski’s group in America had gladly welcomed the news of Azhari’s premiership. Brzezinski writes: “The news that the Shah had finally opted for a military government greatly relieved me. I saw in this a welcome sign that the Shah had finally faced up to the crisis and was prepared to assert effective leadership. With a large army at his command, I felt that he could prevail if a head-on confrontation developed and that he could use the military not only to establish order but to initiate a comprehensive clean-up of existing corruption.”^{( 511)} On the day that Azhari’s cabinet was formed, in a press conference in which British, French and German reporters took part, Imam Khomeini was asked: “To co-operate, the Shah has resorted to the establishment of a military government and has appointed General Azhari to head it. For his part, the General has promised that completely free and fair elections will be held in future. The Shah has also turned to the Ayatullahs and other leading clergymen for their help to restore calm in Iran. What is your reaction to this?” In reply Imam said: “The means to which the Shah has resorted, deceit on the one hand as shown in his speech in which he appealed to the clergymen and other people in the country for help, and his actions on the other in setting up a military government to crush the nation, to kill and plunder, will in no way affect our destiny and the movement. As for the promise of free elections, this is just imaginary, and elections whether free or otherwise are illegal because neither is the Shah a legitimate ruler nor is his government legitimate. So it is not a question of whether elections are held freely or otherwise; the nation will never give him its consent.

During the last days of his rule, the Shah increasingly pinned his hopes on the support he hoped to receive from America and Britain for he realised that Azhari’s military cabinet would not be able to do anything to improve his regime’s standing. William Sullivan, the last American ambassador to Iran during the Shah’s rule, in his book Mission to Iran in the section dealing with the Shah’s decision to set up a military government describes how he and the British ambassador were called upon to go to see the Shah at Niavaran palace and writes:

“It was nearly another hour before the British ambassador arrived, and during that period the Shah rehearsed once again his familiar arguments about the options open to him. In the middle of this, he received a telephone call from the shahbanou. Although my understanding of Farsi was less than adequate, I could make out that he was telling her of his intention to install a military government and answering some of the reservations, she was expressing about such a decision. It was a gentle, patient sort of conversation with nothing peremptory in its tone. He informed her at the end that the United States government had agreed with the wisdom of this course of action. Once this conversation was concluded, he picked up the phone and called General Azhari, the chief of staff, asking him to come to the palace as soon as he could get there.

“After the arrival of the British ambassador, the Shah offered elaborate apologies for the destruction of the British chancery and asked him to assure his government that it would be rebuilt at Iranian expense. He then proceeded to lay out his decision to Install a military government and asked whether the British government had expressed any views on the subject. Ambassador Parsons indicated he had no instructions and probably would be unable to seek them immediately, because his communications equipment had been destroyed in the chancery fire. The Shah did not press the matter further except to say he would install the government that evening and announce it in the morning.

“On the way out of the palace, we met Azhari in the waiting room below. We confirmed his assumption as to why he had been summoned and wished him sincere good luck as he assumed his new duties. Azhari, who was anything but a power-hungry general, looked dejected as he climbed the stairs to see the Shah and receive his new assignment.”^{( 512)}

Imam’s important declaration issued on November 7, 1978 (Aban 16, 1 357 AHS) and beginning with the statement “I am greatly sorrowed by the crime which took place recently in the university against the children of Islam;” and containing sentences such as “the Shah has turned our universities into the slaughter houses of our youth” had just reached Tehran. It was reproduced in great numbers and copies were posted on walls and doors, especially in the streets surrounding Tehran University. Despite martial law being in effect, in some areas soldiers stood alongside young men and women reading Imam’s declaration

That evening, from 8 pm onwards, the cries of “Death to the Pahlavi regime” and “We are followers of the Qur’an and do not want a monarchy,” along with the sound of aimless gunfire into the air, filled the streets and alleyways.

It was written in one of the newspapers that as soon as a military government is brought to power in Iran, America will support it.^{( 513)} When such an action turned out to be against America’s stance in defence of human rights, the White House spokesperson created the excuse that the measure enjoyed America’s backing because the instalment of a military government was necessary for the establishment of democracy in Iran, that it was the forerunner to the democracy needed to settle the people and restore order, and it was for this reason it had been installed. Moreover, it was argued that this was just a temporary measure, and later, when order was assured, a proper government would be brought in.

All this talk about human rights and this Declaration of Human Rights is just a way for them (the superpowers) to devour these weak governments and justify their action. Do not suppose that the Declaration of Human Rights is a reality. Do these superpowers show even the slightest respect for human rights? We can judge from the actions of these signatories to the Declaration of Human Rights as to just how far they have acted in accordance with the principles of human rights. We can see in the case of Iran alone to what extent these signatories: America, Britain, Russia and Iran - for she too has signed it - have observed the basic principles of human rights. Freedom of expression, free elections, freedom of the press, radio and television, and freedom to propagate, these are basic human rights. Does America not know that we have neither the freedom to propagate nor a free press? At present, all press offices in Iran are closed because the military government has reintroduced censorship control and has arrested many different people. It is said that six hundred celebrated figures have been arrested so far.^{( 514)} Does America not know that the press in Iran was never free in the true sense of the word? Even in those few days that they apparently allowed a partial freedom,^{( 515)} not one of the newspapers could write a word about the Shah himself who is the head of the thieves. Not one single word was written about him in any newspaper in Iran, the Ittila ‘at and Kayhan included. Whatever criticism appeared was levelled at the government and the agents; all blame was apportioned among the agents, the government and the military, whereas the main culprit is the Shah. If the press is free, then they should say who is perpetrating these crimes, and upon whose command these crimes are being committed.

The Shah has been constantly engaged in such crimes now for more than fifteen years. Throughout the period that we have had a constitution in Iran, very rarely did we have a national election. Throughout the rule of Riza Shah and this Shah, we never had a freely elected government or Parliament; Parliament was always formed at bayonet point. One of the people’s basic rights is that they are free to choose their parliamentary representatives, for it is these representatives who will determine the country’s destiny and will oversee the administration of all state affairs. If the Parliament is a legitimate one, then the country will be orderly and sound. However, if the Parliament is illegitimate, it will destroy the country, as it has done. Does America not know this? Does Russia not know this? Does Britain not know that in Iran neither the parliamentary representatives nor the press are free? Nothing in the country is free; everything is subjected to censorship and control, for bayonets are created by bayonets. All the parliaments have been created by the bayonet and under coercion from the Shah. Do not the Americans know this? Or are they aware of what is going on in Iran? They have ambassadors in Iran who send them information, they have agents there, the country is in their hands, they know what is going on. They know what our nation wants, but they are afraid that if the nation prevalis then they will no longer be able to encroach upon the rights of the people.

Those who shouted out in defence of human rights at one time are now supporting martial law and a military government; and although this conflicts with their stance on human rights, for martial law deprive a nation of all its freedoms, nevertheless Carter and the American government continue to help and support the Shah. They are now trying to justify this support by claiming that this poor man is going through a lot of trouble to make the people free and the country prosperous, but that the people themselves do not want to be free and do not want their country to prosper, that the Iranian nation does not allow this Shah to give them freedom! Carter claims that the people lack good sense, that they are a group of savages who do not have the wits to see that freedom is good for them. He says that this disorder in Iran has come about because the Shah wants to give the people freedom, thus America is extending him its support so that the Shah can restore order in Iran and can, with peace of mind, grant the freedom he wants to grant.

However, the people won’t let this happen. Does Carter not know what he is saying? Does the White House spokesperson speak without understanding? Do they lack knowledge of the situation and thus they speak in this manner? Or does their knowledge of the situation lead them to speak in this way and they do so through clear-sightedness and because they are aware of what is really happening.

The Declaration of Human Rights is a tool used by them to rob the people on the plausible pretext of doing something good. But this is just another face-saving tactic. The Declaration of Human Rights is no different from the Shah’s bestowal of freedom on the people or his provision of a free and open political climate! They are nothing more than idle talk.

In this world, such talk stems from people who do not have strong ideological foundations. Such people lack foundation; or rather, their principles are based on nothing other than material values. Such talk is irrelevant. A state can claim that it protects human rights when its government is based on divine religious tenets and it sees itself as answerable to a great power. Those who do not consider themselves answerable to a great power, who do not believe in a great power, who have no regard for a higher power or who do not believe that a real accounting and recompense will take place, then no matter how much they claim to be (true) humanitarians who want to protect the rights of men, their claims will always be simply claims, they will have no reality. As long as that most fundamental detail, which is belief in God, is missing, as long as there is no fear of Him nor of a reckoning on the Day of Judgement, then confusion and disorder will reign amongst man and humankind will be dragged towards corruption and ruin.

It is human nature to do wrong. If left to its own devices, human nature is naturally aggressive. That which brings the human being onto the path, that which establishes control and determines man’s path, is religion; it is belief in a beginning and a resurrection, which can prevent man, even when alone with no one else to see, from straying. We do not believe all this talk that high rank and humanitarianism make a person care about humanity. It was the humanitarians who went to Iran even after the Killings on Black Friday. It was that humanitarian who rules over a billion people and claims to be both humanitarian and communist who went to Iran, flew over the bodies of the dead in a helicopter and (then) shook the Shah’s hand and congratulated him.^{( 516)} these are the humanitarians for you!

Do the superpowers, Britain, America and Russia, who have signed the Declaration of Human Rights and have laid the foundations for other similar projects, not know what is currently taking place in Iran? Do these humanitarians not know what is happening to the thirty million people in Iran? Do they not understand what is going on? No? Are they not informed of the reality? Is the truth that the Shah wants to give the people freedom and they are opposed to this? Is this the situation? Is this what Carter has understood the situation to be? Or has he come to this understanding through some supernatural means? Did this just come into his mind? No, Satan instructed him to say such things. This is the work of the Devil. They (Carter and others like him) are the Devil incarnate, they are taghuts.

So long as spiritual values are not respected, humankind will not be bettered. Such things as the amelioration of humankind and the protection of human rights will not be achieved unless they are attempted from a spiritual basis. We can see how those rulers who came to power and relied on God treated man, and how those who did not rely on God and had nothing to do with spiritual affairs behaved towards the rest of humankind. We can see how one who ruled over a vast region would get up at night and go to the doors of houses to examine the state of the poor and weak and attend to their needs. This ruler once said that he was afraid lest somewhere in his realm, in Yemen or somewhere, someone went hungry while he ate his fill, and for this reason he kept himself hungry. It was belief in God, a belief in the unseen that made him act this way, for otherwise he was human just like everybody else. It was belief in the unseen that made this man such that when a soldier of Mu’ awiya’ s army robbed a dhimmi^{( 517)} woman, a Jew or a Christian, of her anklet, he became so distraught that he said: “If a person were to die in circumstances such as mine, no one would reproach him.”^{( 518)}

Such a man can be said to care about humanity, because he has belief, he believes in a world after this world, he knows that life does not simply revolve around eating and food, it does not only involve an animalistic life, he knows there is something else. Those who believe in spiritual principles can be relied on; man can place his destiny in their hands; man can make such people his representative, his minister or his president.

Our call today is that this is what we want to do. Our destiny has for the past two thousand five hundred years been in the hands of black imperial rule. Until recently this man was saying that the Iranian people liked the monarchy, that they were Shah-worshippers, yet throughout the history of monarchical rule in Iran these Shahs and Shah-worshippers - as he calls them - have been at each other’s throats. Battles and disputes between them have marked this period. Even those kings who were reputed to be good, whose name ‘Janat Makan^{( 519)} ’ would evoke respect whenever mentioned, were evil. Shah ‘Abbas is one of them; he blinded his own son for the sake of his realm and his position. Anushirvan the Just is another;^{( 520)} he was one of the worst tyrants, and his oppressive acts have been recorded in history. God knows how Iran has suffered under these monarchs. You yourselves are currently witnessing the actions of this Shah, this justice-seeking Shah, this Shah who wants to create a just society and claims to protect Islam! A short time ago in a speech, he claimed that he wanted to propagate Islam and implement the constitutional law. Up until a couple of days ago, he was a liar, and he is no different today. He is lying to the people and I know that they realise this. A short while ago, these Shah-loving people of Isfahan set alight anything associated with the government and the Shah! Yet, at the same time he was speaking about his friends who are the Shah-loving people of Isfahan, the Shah-loving people of Tehran, Yard and Kerman and claimed that everywhere was the same. Was it this love of the Shah that a few days ago led the people to tear down that statue and break it into pieces, each person taking a piece as a souvenir?^{( 521)} Are these the Shah-lovers? Does he (the Shah) not know what state Iran is in and where the sympathies of the Iranian people lie? It is amazing. He is amazing. He installs a military government which tomorrow will set alight this city and that village and kill the people, yet still he stands before the people and comes out with such things as: “I give you a pledge, I promise, I guarantee that I will not repeat my past actions!^{( 522)} what kind of madness is this? A philosopher or a physician should be brought to explain this. This brain should be inspected to see what kind it is that makes him speak such words. What kind of behaviour is this? This kind of behaviour needs to be examined; a normal person would not act this way. This is abnormal behaviour. It is a miracle of nature! (The audience laughs). Yes, he has said this and it is truly extraordinary. (The audience laughs).

Be that as it may, he takes advantage of everything, but most of all he has taken advantage of the apathy shown by the nation up until recently. However, now that apathy has been transformed to ardour and he doesn’t know what to do about it. According to the translated account of events that I read, the supporters of America who were in Japan’^{( 523)} are once again talking about the oil problem. They fear that without (Iranian) oil, European industries and factories would cease to function. This was said in Japan to get the Japanese to join them in opposition. However, the truth of the matter is that we want to sell our oil to anyone who will give us money for it, not to those who will set up bases for themselves in return. It is amazing that some people are allowed to take our oil and set up bases for themselves in Iran in exchange. Do not think that those who give us weapons do so because we need them. These weapons they give us are those that they want to have in Iran to use to establish their bases there against the Russians for example. Even though this is the case, he (the Shah) does not say anything, so he himself agrees with this. When they want to do something, they use the excuse that they are doing it to pay for the oil they have taken! The oil money does not go into the pockets of the nation, no, it goes into the building of bases in Iran for the Americans. This is how they are robbing this nation of its wealth. We want this to stop. We are not going to cease selling our oil; we are not going to keep

It. We want to sell it to whichever government is willing to give us the best price for it. The oil is ours, we are the sellers and they are the buyers. We want to have the choice, we do not want the choice to lie in their (the Americans’) hands, we do not want it to be them who say how much we can extract, what price we can sell it for and what we receive in return for it. They take our oil and the money they pay for it goes back into their pockets through the bases they have built for themselves in Iran. We want this to stop.

The first right of a human being to which he is entitled, one which is recognised by all countries of the world, is freedom. We want to acquire this. The people of this nation have taken to the streets empty-handed, they shout out and give their youth and are trampled under foot and under tank. The women and men of this nation face the tanks shouting in unison: “Freedom. Independence and an Islamic government.” We want a legitimate government, one that will respect the law. We oppose a government, which shows disregard for all human rights and all international laws, and which acts in whatever manner it wishes towards the people. We want a government like that during the first age of Islam, one which will govern no other way except in accordance with the law, in accordance with a law which is just and right, a law whose aim is to develop man and better him. We are facing these problems now, and as we sit here, the troubles continue in Iran. But along with the suffering there is hope. We hope that, God willing, for all their might we will sever the hands of the superpowers, which grasp our resources. (The audience replies with God willing). May God protect you all and grant you success.