On June 7th, 2012,
Reza Pahlavi gave an interview with the well-respected German weekly magazine, OnLine
Focus.(1) A Persian translation was published soon after(2). After this, his
office published a statement in Persian which said that there were numerous
mistakes in the interview, which it had asked Focus Online to correct.(3) I had, in this time,
published a short critical comment about the article.(4) However, after reading the Pahlavi office’s
statement, in order to be sure that the translation from German into Persian
was correct, I sent both to an Iranian lawyer at the Max Plank Institute in
Germany. He wrote back: ‘I read both, and the German-to-Persian translation is
correct and exact.’ He then wrote, ‘with regard to Reza Pahlavi, the truth is
that when I read the German text, I felt sick. My annoyance and anger at such a
low and contemptible political act, which clearly reveals the backwardness of
[Reza Pahlavi’s] mind, were so severe that I did not know what to do. I thought
to leave a very critical comment (on Focus Online), but I realized that
the interviewer knew what she was doing and, in fact, that using the best of
methods she had revealed his empty, raw and childlike mind, which is at the
same time is filled with meaningless arrogance.”
The cause of his anger was Reza Pahlavi’s
declaration that he was the legal king of Iran, and that he can’t wait to sit
on the throne. Also, in order to justify his father’s dictatorial rule, he
argued that Iranians had not been ready for democracy and that, in effect, they
did not deserve it. He suggested that his father had to train them, even saying
that ‘some [former] revolutionaries are coming to me and saying that it would
have been better if my father had arrested or executed them.’ He also praised
the policy towards Iran of the despots of Saudi Arabi, Qatar and Bahrain, and
placed himself importantly next to Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
As far as I know, it was Mohammad Amini who wrote
the first solid critique of this interview. After its publication he came under
a barrage of criticism from monarchists who argued that the interviewer has
misrepresented the views of Reza Pahlavi. They referred to a letter written by
his office to Focus Online, which argues, ‘we need to mention that there
are numerous mistakes in its translation from English into German and then into
Persian, and that in this text the German-to-Persian translation is not
compatible with the language of Reza Pahlavi. […] We request that Focus
Online respects the media regulations and publishes the English version of
the interview and corrects its German translation as soon as possible.’
Mohammad Amini contacted Focus Online to ask
about their view of this statement. He was told that, first, they have not
received any request from Reza Pahlavi’s office, and second, that the interview
was recorded and that the record is at their disposal.(5)
It is thus safe to assume that the sole purpose of
the Pahlavi office’s statement is to deceive Iranians. Why? Because if the
office really believed that the magazine did not accurately represent his
views, they should have sent a statement to the magazine citing the parts which
were misrepresented, rather than issuing a letter of protest in Persian without
making the magazine aware. This is deeply unethical on two fronts. First, they
have tried to deceive Iranians by making them believe that the letter was sent
to the magazine. Second, they have accused the magazine of being dishonest, or
at least, of lacking professional ethics, without giving it an opportunity to
reply.
The mere fact that the Pahlavi office did not
contact the magazine to register their concern suggests that Focus Online
had actually conveyed what Reza Pahlavi had said. In fact, the interview was a
brilliant piece of journalism by the skilful Andrea-Claudia Hoffmann, who knows
the psychology of power-seeking people. As a result, Reza Pahlavi let his guard
down and expressed his true self, which is always hidden behind the mask of
someone who struggles for freedom and democracy. In other words, he was caught
red-handed. He then panicked and, as damage limitation, issued a vague
statement in Persian saying that his views were misrepresented.
After posting the Persian version of this post,
Siamak Zand wrote, ‘as a journalist who worked at the Shah's press office for
the last seven years of his reign, resorting to such lies and deceit was the
norm rather than an exception.’
I argued that if Reza Pahlavi believed my arguments
were wrong, it would be easy to prove them so by releasing the interview
recording or asking Focus Online to publish it. However, after more than a month’s silence, he has stated in an
interview that his associates contacted the magazine requesting a copy of the
interview, that the magazine declined, and that he is thus taking the magazine
to court to begin a legal process.(6)
There are a number of things that should be noted
in this regard.
First, Mr Reza Pahlavi is well aware that one of
the main tasks of the press office which he has at his disposal is to record
and archive any interview he gives, so that it could be referred to in times
like this. I am therefore requesting that he asks his press office to
release the record if, for inexplicable reasons, the German magazine refuses to
do so. Why, instead of doing that, does he want to assume the hefty financial
burden that will be necessary for legal action?
Could he release the letter that his office wrote
to Focus Online, in which he asks the magazine to release the record of
the interview? If not, why not?
Why has the letter written to Focus Online not
been translated from Persian into either English or German?
What is the nature of the case upon which his
lawyer is taking the magazine to court? Is it defamation, libel or something
else?
Could he release the legal letter which was written
by his German lawyer? If not, why not?
To which German court has he applied? Releasing
this information would enable us to learn more about the nature of the
complaint itself. If he is unwilling to supply us with this information, why is
this so?
More than 40 days after the interview, Mr Pahlavi
has still not explained which part of interview was falsified or
misrepresented. In another interview last week, he said that he did not
remember being asked if he wished to be crowned, which legally speaking is not
a denial that he had been asked such a question. What is the reason for such a
slow response, and such vagueness?
Finally, I would like to argue that the reason Mr
Pahlavi is so slow to respond and vague about the interview is that he realises
he has said all these things and is now discussing legal action in order to buy
time. Why? He knows well that it can take months, if not years, for such cases
to go to court (if he really has taken the magazine to court) and has
calculated that with such longevity the whole issue will be forgotten. I have
to inform him that he could not be more wrong. The life expectancy of lie
is very short when it burns with the oxygen of freedom.
Again, I ask Mr Reza Pahlavi to release the
letters, and to release the recording of the interview. If he has nothing to
hide, he should have volunteered this information himself. We are still
waiting.
(4):
(5):
(6): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ockU8QVvwEg&feature=plcp
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر