Question. Mr. President, you and the IPU Secretary General visited Amman and Beirut recently. What were the highlights of your tour?
Mr. Pier Ferdinando Casini. We were in Amman on 11 September for the inauguration of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) The establishment of this new Assembly is the manifestation of the shared belief around the Mediterranean in dialogue as a preferred means of resolving differences. It represented the culmination of a 15-year long process, during which the IPU had facilitated political dialogue among members of parliament on security and cooperation issues in the Mediterranean. The Assembly has furthermore endorsed a statement by its President, Mr. Abdelwahed Radi, calling on the Israeli authorities to release the Speaker and several members of the Palestinian Legislative Council who were recently imprisoned.
In Lebanon, we met the Prime Minister, Mr. Fouad Siniora. We agreed that implementation of resolution 1701 should be accompanied by a political process leading to the strengthening of the State of Lebanon and the cessation of external interference, as well as the withdrawal of Israeli forces once all Lebanese prisoners and Israeli citizens were released, and that a solution should be found to the problem of the Sheba Farms.
Q. The Amman meeting coincided with the commemoration of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. What was your message?
P.F.C. We wanted to express our solidarity with the victims of those terrorist attacks and with the American people. I also made a call for dialogue to build trust among peoples, cultures and religions and as a means of settling conflicts and differences.
Q. You travelled to Iran before that, where you were received by President Ahmadinejad, the Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Haddad-Adel, the Secretary of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Jannati, and by Foreign Minister Mottaki. What was your message to your Iranian hosts?
P.F.C. I urged them to respect the United Nations Security Council resolution on suspension of their uranium enrichment programme, stressing if they did, Iran could play a leading role in bringing stability to the region. I said that dialogue and negotiation were the only possible avenues through which Iran and other countries could reach an agreement and solve their differences. I added that the Parliament had played an important role since it was elected to represent the people.
I also mentioned Israel's right to exist. Our Iranian counterparts reiterated their commitment to pursuing a course of dialogue and negotiations to resolve the nuclear issue, adding that the bottom line of any agreement must contain recognition of their right to enrich uranium for the purpose of nuclear energy. They said they were willing to provide guarantees that enriched uranium would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that Iran would submit to an inspection and monitoring regime.
Q. The IPU would like to strengthen its cooperation with the United Nations. Why?
P.F.C. Because the legitimacy of any intergovernmental organization comes from parliament. That is why we cannot be compared to a non-governmental organization. While they play a very important role indeed, they in no way reflect the identity of our Organization. The IPU is unique in that it is "present" in 146 parliaments throughout the world. It is they which, in large measure, confer to their governments the legitimacy and sovereignty granted by the people and the parliament.
Q. Let's talk about the fight against terrorism. How to combat terrorism while respecting the rights of citizens?
P.F.C. This is the major challenge of the third millennium. In theory, democracy should be able to defend itself without resorting to extraordinary measures. I am proud that my country has fought and won the battle against terrorism without having to resort to any special laws. But in certain circumstances, citizens must understand that reducing their rights a little means heightening their security. The rights affecting the private lives of citizens are fundamental, but if the fact of reducing a little our right to privacy means more effective and efficient defence and national security, then I think it's a sacrifice that citizens must make. However, if liberty must be compromised to better guarantee security, that is unacceptable. Genuine peace can only be based on liberty and citizens' rights.
