[Iran’s
state news media, which have described Mr. Ban’s visit as a repudiation of
American and Israeli efforts to isolate Iran, also reported on the meetings but
framed them differently, focusing on Mr. Ban’s gratitude for the invitation,
their shared goal of resolving the Syrian conflict and Iran’s complaints about
big-power meddling in Syria — a reference to efforts by the United States and
its allies to topple President Bashar al-Assad, a strategic ally of Iran.]
By Thomas Erdbrink And Rick Gladstone
Iran’s state news media, which have described Mr. Ban’s
visit as a repudiation of American and Israeli efforts to isolate Iran, also
reported on the meetings but framed them differently, focusing on Mr. Ban’s
gratitude for the invitation, their shared goal of resolving the Syrian
conflict and Iran’s complaints about big-power meddling in Syria — a reference
to efforts by the United States and its allies to topple President Bashar
al-Assad, a strategic ally of Iran.
There was no mention in Iranian accounts of Mr. Ban’s
criticism of Iran’s human rights record or the comments about Israel by the
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others, who refer to Israel as the
Zionist entity and have described it as a cancerous tumor that should be
eradicated.
The competing accounts of Mr. Ban’s visit came on the first
day of a three-day visit to the Nonaligned Movement’s annual
meeting, which Iran is hosting as president until 2015 under a three-year rotation
system in the 120-member group, the biggest single bloc in the 193-member
General Assembly. Mr. Ban decided to attend despite calls by the United States and Israel to boycott it because of Iran ’s role.
Mr. Ban’s exact itinerary has not been disclosed, and
confusion quickly arose upon his arrival over whether, and when, he would speak
to the foreign news media here. Iranian officials said he would hold a news
conference before he departs on Friday.
Martin Nesirky, Mr. Ban’s chief spokesman, told reporters
that Mr. Ban had extensive meetings with the Parliament speaker, Ali Larijani,
followed by Mr. Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei and Saeed Jalili, the highest
ranking national security official. Mr. Jalili has been the main negotiator in Iran ’s nuclear dispute with the P5-plus-1 powers — the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany .
Mr. Ban expressed regret that little progress had been
achieved since the talks resumed in April, and told his hosts that Iran “needed to take concrete steps and prove to the world its
nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,” Mr. Nesirky said. Iran has denied Western and Israeli accusations that its
uranium enrichment program is a cover to develop nuclear
weapons.
On Syria , Mr. Nesirky said, the secretary general expressed
opposition to further militarization of the conflict and asked Iranian leaders
to use their influence to halt the violence there. He declined to specify
whether Mr. Ban had reiterated in private his public demand that Mr. Assad
resign.
Ayatollah Khamenei told Mr. Ban that “Iran will not spare any effort to resolve the Syrian crisis,” Iran state radio reported, but added that “solving the Syrian
problem has a condition, and that is to prevent the export of weapons to
irresponsible groups inside Syria .”
Mr. Nesirky said the secretary general told Mr. Ahmadinejad
that “the human rights situation in Iran remains a source of concern. Fundamental civil and
political rights should be respected.” And in his meetings with the president
and supreme leader, the spokesman said, Mr. Ban “strongly objected to recent
remarks from Iranian officials denying the Holocaust and Israel ’s right to exist. Such remarks should be condemned by
all.”
Asked to characterize the responses of the hosts, Mr.
Nesirky said: “These have been very serious meetings and extremely detailed
meetings. And of course both sides listened to each other.” He said Mr. Ban had
“conveyed extremely clearly and in no uncertain terms what the expectations of
the international community are on all these questions.”
Earlier Wednesday, news accounts by Iran ’s official Islamic Republic News Agency and other state
news media on Mr. Ban’s visit focused primarily on the Syria conflict and Mr. Ban’s positive remarks about Iran ’s importance in the region. They also quoted Mr. Ban as
thanking Iran for hosting refugees from neighboring Afghanistan .
The Iranian accounts also quoted Mr. Larijani as accusing
the United
States and
its allies of bullying and big-power interference not only in Syria but also elsewhere in the Middle East .
“Unfortunately some of the major countries are constantly
acting in a provocative way in the region and creating a kind of disorder in
the region,” Mr. Larijani was quoted as saying by the semiofficial Fars News
Agency. “We have our own opinions, but we contribute to the establishment of
peace in the region.”
Mr. Larijani was further quoted as saying that “Iran always supports democracy in the region” and has supported
the antiauthoritarian uprisings in Tunisia and Libya . He also voiced support for antigovernment protesters in Bahrain . However, he was quoted as saying, “in Syria some major countries and some regional countries have not
made it possible for the establishment of deeper democracy and this is a
mistake.”
At the Nonaligned Movement conference, where Mr. Ban was to
join heads of state and kings on Thursday to listen to a speech by Ayatollah
Khamenei, Syria was being discussed behind closed doors. According to
diplomats speaking anonymously who were in the meeting, the Syrian deputy
foreign minister, Ramzi Ezzodin, gave a fiery speech, attacking Turkey and saying the country had opened its borders for
terrorists who wanted to enter Syria .
Thomas Erdbrink reported from Tehran, and
Rick Gladstone from New York
MR. RYAN’S MISLEADING SPEECH
[That,
however, wasn’t on Mr. Ryan’s agenda. Instead he offered a speech that was part
introduction of himself and his small-town origins, part testimonial to his
running mate and — in largest part — a slashing and, in many elements, misleading indictment of
President Obama as both a spent force and a threat to American freedom. Mr.
Romney and Mr. Obama have starkly different visions about the role of
government, but to caricature the president’s vision as “a government-planned
life, where everything is free but us” insults voters who surely know better.
Emblematic of the liberties Mr. Ryan took was his depiction of the hometown
auto plant whose shuttering he implicitly blamed on Mr. Obama — even though the
plant closed before the president was inaugurated.]
By Editorial Board
“YOU ARE ENTITLED to the clearest possible choice because the time for
choosing is drawing near,” vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan told the
Republican National Convention in Tampa in his hard-hitting acceptance speech Wednesday night. “So here is our
pledge: We will not duck the tough issues — we will lead.”
Those
are fine words; we have heard the sentiment before, including from the
incumbent president. But if Mr. Ryan and Mitt Romney want credit for not
ducking, and if they truly believe that voters are entitled to the clearest
possible choice, it would behoove the candidates to offer more details about
what, precisely, voters are choosing.
That,
however, wasn’t on Mr. Ryan’s agenda. Instead he offered a speech that was part
introduction of himself and his small-town origins, part testimonial to his
running mate and — in largest part — a slashing and, in many elements, misleading indictment of
President Obama as both a spent force and a threat to American freedom. Mr.
Romney and Mr. Obama have starkly different visions about the role of
government, but to caricature the president’s vision as “a government-planned
life, where everything is free but us” insults voters who surely know better.
Emblematic of the liberties Mr. Ryan took was his depiction of the hometown
auto plant whose shuttering he implicitly blamed on Mr. Obama — even though the
plant closed before the president was inaugurated.
A
convention speech is not a budget submission, even when, as with Mr. Ryan, it
comes from the chairman of the House Budget Committee. But a party that claims
to be willing to make hard choices ought to be prepared to spell some of them
out. Mr. Ryan offered only the bare assertion that federal spending of 20 percent
of the gross domestic product is “enough” — despite the aging of the population
and Mr. Romney’s vow to keep defense spending alone at 4 percent.
Mr.
Ryan has been an intellectual leader of his party on fiscal issues, and Mr.
Romney’s decision to add him to the Republican ticket represented an opportunity to focus the debate on this urgent matter, “before,” as
Mr. Ryan said Wednesday, “the math and the momentum overwhelm us all.” Mr. Ryan
skewered the president in his speech for creating and then walking away from a
bipartisan debt commission that, he said, “came back with an urgent report.”
We’ve expressed similar frustrations, but omitted from Mr. Ryan’s self-serving
rendition was the uncomfortable fact that Mr. Ryan served on that very
commission but was unwilling to follow the brave lead of the Republican
senators on the panel who supported its “urgent” recommendations. Will the
Romney-Ryan ticket endorse them now?
Mr.
Ryan’s selection prompted a serious discussion of Medicare reform but also
ushered in a depressingly predictable series of “Mediscare” charges and
counter-charges. Mr. Ryan stooped to some of that Wednesday night, asserting
that “the greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare,” although the health care
law began the hard task of reforming the program. He assailed Mr. Obama for
having “funneled” $716 billion out of Medicare, without mention that his own
budget assumed cuts of precisely that magnitude.
Mr.
Ryan described Mr. Romney as a man prepared “to meet serious challenges in a
serious way, without excuses and idle words.” Mr. Romney’s appearance before
the convention Thursday night is an opportunity to demonstrate that seriousness
— matching rhetoric with substance appropriate to the magnitude of the task the
next president will face.
