Friday, April 30, 2010

Interview with Ernst Zundel

Kourosh Ziabari - Foreign Policy Journal: Ernst Zundel is a German author and historian who has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his controversial viewpoints and opinions. He is a revisionist who has denied the Holocaust as described by most historians. He has been one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe and has been jailed in three countries on two continents.

After his arrest in the U.S. in 2003, he was deported to Canada, where he was kept in prison as “a threat to the national security” for two years. After deportation to Germany in March 2005, he was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to five additional years of imprisonment on charges of holocaust denial. He was finally released on March 1, 2010.

This is the first interview Ernst Zundel has given since his release.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Interview with Patrick Winn

Kourosh Ziabari - Thailand is currently witness to one of its bloodiest civil wars...the worst since the 2006 military coup which ousted the popular Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from office. The supporters of former Prime Minister are calling for the dissolution of parliament and a new round of general elections. The "Red Shirts" are middle-urban and rural Thais who benefited from the socialistic policies of former Prime Minister and are now risking their lives for the reappearance of freedom and democracy in Thailand. According to the official stats, 24 people have been killed and 1000 other wounded since the eruption of demonstrations and street clashes in which the Thai police has relentlessly opened fire on the angry demonstrators.

Having seen 15 military coups and 27 changes of Prime Ministers during his 64 years of kingdom, the 82-year-old Thai monarch Bhumibol Adulyadej is the world's longest-serving head of state and has kept a low profile regarding the current political crisis in his country. The military loyalists of Mr. Adulyadej who deposed the popular government in a bloodless September 2006 coup had resorted to a number of excuses, including several charges of lèse majesté, to depose Thaksin and bring into power the chief of army General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, a close ally of the king.

Now, Thailand is facing a paralyzing political crisis once again and stability has departed from Bangkok. I've interviewed Patrick Winn, the American journalist and Thailand correspondent of the Global Post news service to discuss the movement of Red Shirts and the intensive chaos in the South Asian country.

Who are the powers that be behind the UA of E?

Press TV - Kourosh Ziabari : Calling the United Arab Emirates a pawn of London and Washington may be indiscreet but it is certainly not unfair nor is it unjust. Since its declaration of statehood just 40 years ago, the UAE has staunchly pursued the interests of its colonial master and is now taking serious steps to appease its American overseer. In addition, the UAE is moving towards strengthening ties with the occupying regime of Israel; under the banner of an Islamic nation, no less. The White House has, yet again, succeeded in installing a new stooge to do its bidding in the Middle East.

In late February 2009, the Defense News website revealed that Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv had reached a $20m agreement over a commercial deal which would set in motion the Arab nation's access to the Israeli-built Eros B satellite and its high-resolution imagery.

Defense News, owned by the giant American media conglomerate, Gannet Company, wrote last year: "for Israel, the deal represents the latest step in forging links with a key moderate Arab state which, like Israel, worries about the threat from Iran".

And that's a bitter dose of reality, emerging behind the scenes: the "moderate" Arab state is taking slow but sure steps attempting to normalize ties with the Zionist regime. More precisely, Abu Dhabi has been trying to reinstitute ties with Israel since 2004. In contrast to the wonderful silence of British and American mainstream media outlets, the Something Jewish website reported in early 2004 that Israel plans to establish a consular office in the UAE: "Israeli officials say they are holding talks with representatives of the United Arab Emirates on opening an office in Abu Dhabi… under the proposed move, Abu Dhabi would allow Israeli diplomats to operate from the center, but it would officially operate like a corporate office, not an embassy."

Continues here

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

A Lack of diplomatic fineness

Mehr News Agency - Kourosh Ziabari: It seems that UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan has much to learn about the fine art of diplomacy.
Demonstrating his lack of diplomatic finesse and inexperience, the UAE foreign minister has exposed himself to the possibility of a harsh response from the Islamic Republic of Iran through his provocative remarks in which he explicitly questions the territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic, the most tolerant and pacifist state of the Persian Gulf region.

With the surreptitious support of the Zionist, U.S., and British lobbies, the United Arab Emirates is now playing the role of a regional ally of the hegemonistic powers that have created a specter of Iranophobia for Arab states, which now consider Iran a serious threat to their security.

The United Arab Emirates, which in 2004 started negotiations with Tel Aviv over the establishment of an Israeli representative office in Abu Dhabi, is currently holding negotiations on a $20 million deal with the Zionist regime that would facilitate the UAE’s access to the Israeli-built satellite Eros B and its high-resolution imagery.

A report published on February 23, 2009 on the American Defense News website said that “for Israel, the deal represents the latest step in forging links with a key moderate Arab state which, like Israel, worries about the threat from Iran.”

Continues here

Thursday, April 22, 2010

What Does the Israel-Backed UAE Say?

Kourosh Ziabari - Salem News: Speaking or writing as an Iranian citizen makes it difficult to weigh in on the latest remarks made by the UAE Foreign Minister, Abdallah Bin Zayid Al Nahyan, who likened Iran's legal sovereignty of it's Persian Gulf islands to the Zionist regime's occupation of Syria's Golan heights. Putting the nationalistic bias and prejudice aside, some focal points should be considered regarding what the novice FM has grumbled in his latest statements before the Federal Council of Emirates.

To one's utmost surprise, Mr. Nahyan, interestingly is 36 years old, and it means that he is one year younger than the country he represents internationally, since the official establishment of the state of United Arabic Emirates dates back to 1971, and Nahyan is born on April 30, 1972.

So, from a basic comparison with his Iranian counterpart who is a veteran, 57-year-old diplomat, one can simply figure out that Nahyan is too inexperienced and green to make verbal attacks against a country which has existed on the face of earth for the past 7500 years, and mathematically, 7500 is more than a little bit bigger than 37!

Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian counterpart of Mr. Nahyan, has been a senior diplomat and politician for the past 30 years, serving in various departments and sections of Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so even if Mr. Nahyan has started his diplomatic career since he was 10, he would still lag 3 years behind Mr. Mottaki in terms of political experience.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Interview with Carlos Latuff

Kourosh Ziabari - Carlos Latuff: Tehran / Rio De Janeiro - The hero of "freedom of speech", boycotted by the corporate, mainstream media that are irresistible against the astringent truth: this is the most precise and accurate introduction which I can present about Carlos Latuff.

Born in the suburbs of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, he is an artist of conscience whose artistic commitment and morality prevented him from becoming the pawn of imperialism. Carlos Latuff is a world-renowned cartoonist who has long brought into existence artistic works and cartoons in which the footsteps of creativity, novelty, intelligence and decency can be traced noticeably.

He has never been given the opportunity to showcase his matchless cartoons in the New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post, BBC or CNN; however, the narrow hallways of personal blogs and independent media outlets which allowed his cartoons to breathe in the atmosphere of publicity, made him a man of genuineness and reality, known by those who seek something beyond the outdated, obsolete propaganda of "all options are on the table".

Carlos Latuff has drawn numerous cartoons which depict the pains of oppressed nations around the world; from the Palestinians being suffocated under the Israeli occupation to the Iranians receiving the spates of psychological operation co-manufactured by the White House and Tel Aviv.

Here is the complete text of my interview with Carlos Latuff, conducted for Iran's best-selling newspaper Jame-Jam, where we elaborately discussed his intellectual mission and the prospect of his artistic trajectory.

Originally published in Salem News

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

When "Barack" decides to head a Barrack

Arab Online - Kourosh Ziabari: "The continued presence of all options on the table"; this is the disappointing message which a Nobel Peace Prize laureate dispatches internationally. In his latest interview with CBS news, American President Barack Obama refused to rule out the possibility of a military strike against Iran by harking back to the famous catchphrase of former U.S. President George W. Bush who once devised, regarding Iran's nuclear program, the popular sentence of "all options are on the table".

Putting the quality and quantity of these options aside, the very "table" on which the options should be placed is as well a matter of controversy. Who is in the position to decide the destiny of Iran's nuclear program? Which table is the U.S. President referring to? What's wrong with Iran's nuclear program in lieu of which a 70-million nation should go on with crippling sanctions, continued threats of military strike, isolation and economic embargo? What's the definite answer to the simple question that "why should the U.S., France and Israel possess nuclear weapons"? Which one is more offensive and violent? Iran's nuclear program which has been demonstrated again and again that does not have anything to do with military purposes, or the adventurous, aggressive trajectory Washington and its European allies have begun to go across?

Robert Parry, an award-winning American investigative journalist austerely answers the questions we have in mind. In an April 2 article in Consortium News, he notes: "if two countries with powerful nuclear arsenals were openly musing about attacking a third country over mere suspicions that it might want to join the nuclear club, we'd tend to sympathize with the non-nuclear underdog as the victim of bullying and possible aggression."

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Why Doesn't Real Freedom Exist?

Scoop (New Zealand) - Kourosh Ziabari: Historically, freedom has been a vital and mostly unanswered question of mankind who has constantly endeavored to realize a free and tranquil life, particularly in the developing world, where the abundance and pervasiveness of natural resources almost sows the seeds for the emergence of corrupt, illegitimate and despotic power and lays the groundwork for a long-term instatement of totalitarianism and autocracy.

The annals of our contemporary history are full of the real fictions and stories of people who have bargained their life at the expense of freedom, fulfilling the ambitions of nations and achieving sustainable liberty. Struggling for freedom and helping the suffocated masses broadcast their voice is a perennial catchphrase of wars and revolutions, so even the hardliner monarchs and dictators know well how to use the motto of freedom competently.

However, what does real freedom essentially look like? Why do the candidates of Presidential and Parliamentary elections constantly orchestrate the slogan of freedom to win the hearts and souls? Why the international powers always employ the pretext of "liberating people" in order to justify their military expeditions all around the world? Why the unique catchword of popular advocates of human rights, political prisoners, opposition leaders and social critics is the one-word pledge of "freedom"?

Personally, I have for so long had the problem of defining the concept of freedom and materializing it from an abstract perception to a concrete and tangible reality.

What we usually think of when emphasizing the inevitability of freedom is rather an idealistic and impractical mindset about a liberal, unrestricted and limitless society in which the residents, from the grassroots, proletariat and workers to the rhetoricians, journalists, dissidents and scholars are free to act, express and challenge in any way they want to. So, what is the external incarnation of this "free" world where the constraints and chains do not exist and people breathe in the air of "freedom" and "liberty" perfectly?

Continues here

Friday, April 09, 2010

Why is 5 bigger than 118?

Exclusive for The Non-Aligned Movement is an international organization of 118 countries who have declared their ideological opposition to any sort of foreign intervention, hegemony, colonialism, domination, aggression and imperialism. The member states of NAM constitute 55% of the world population and represent two-thirds of the UN members. Fundamentally, the criteria of membership in NAM is "independence" and inclination to self-determination. As a result, the members of Non-Aligned Movement come from four corners of the world with various cultural, lingual, religious and racial backgrounds and a common principle which is opposition to imperialistic inequality.

In practice, NAM works as a global coalition of nations who share common objectives and ideals. They haven't come together randomly nor have they been imposed on the other nations and countries unfairly. Despite being in majority, they never endeavored to dictate their own will to the international community since they understand that the term "international community" does not solely encompass the U.S. and Israel.

Another international body is the 15-member United Nations Security Council which is seen to be the foremost organ within the UN system that is capable of deciding the destiny of wars and conflicts, maintaining the global peace and taking care of member states not to violate the international regulations (however, it won't be that important if they violate the international regulations themselves! Which international body has the authority to survey the performance of the UNSC members and their adherence to international regulations?)

The establishment of peacekeeping missions, implementation of sanctions and authorization of military actions are the main powers UNSC holds in order to exercise whenever "necessary".

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

So, we are terrorists!

Kourosh Ziabari - Salem News: Once Dr. Hossein Beik-baghban, a renowned Iranian professor of Oriental Studies at the University of Strasbourg, while addressing a gathering in our university, digressed to explain a bitterly interesting memory from his first years as an Iranian scholar in France:
"I was standing in a queue in a large shopping mall in Alsace, waiting for my turn to hand the goods over to the salesman and get the receipt, when a rustic old German woman appeared before and started talking to me immediately. We talked for some 10 minutes on different topics, and eventually, it came to nationality.
I asked her first and she replied that she is German. Correspondingly, she began guessing about me. Before I told her myself that all of her guesses, one after another, were wrong: Lebanese, Turkish, Azeri, Arab and Russian. I told her that I'm Iranian.
She remained silent and somewhat in shock for a few seconds, and suddenly yelled with excitement: Oh! So, you are a terrorist!"

You're Waging War Against "This" Country

Turkish Weekly Journal - Kourosh Ziabari: Tittle-tattles regarding the possibility of a military strike against Iran are being renewed these days. President Obama, to whom I still wonder why the Nobel Peace Prize has gone, is confessing that former President Bush was right in his belief that Iran poses a serious threat to the international community; Russia is cowardly retreating from its position, joining the rest of world's tyrannical powers who favor the imposition of new sanctions against Iran; fueled up by Israel and AIPAC, American corporate media are laying the groundwork to prepare the public opinions forcefully, convincing them that Iran is the most dangerous country in the Middle East and should be disarmed as soon as possible, otherwise, it may attack Israel to wipe it off the map.

All of what's happening right now resonates with the developments which we've been a witness to two years before the invasion of Iraq. New York Times is exactly replaying the unpleasant scenario it had devised to convince us that the late dictator Saddam Hussein has had Weapons of Mass Destruction. History is being repeated once again and Iran is now subject to a backbreaking, multilateral psychological warfare in addition to the previously-running economic embargo. The very fact that Iran is still standing on its own feet demonstrates the powerful will and strong capability of this nation; however, what's really happening behind the scenes? What will happen if U.S. or its Middle East subordinate, Israel, attack Iran?

Continues Here