TEHRAN - The German cooperation minister on Tuesday warned the Loya Jirga delegates against returning to Islamic law, or the Sharia. The German official argued that if they decide to restore the Sharia in their country, they would deviate from the path of democracy! The minister's remark is flagrant interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs, as it is up to the Afghan people and their representatives at Loya Jirga to decide the kind of constitution they want for their country, not the outsiders, including German officials.

As the former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani recently said, the war and bloodshed in Afghanistan for the past 23 years were caused only because of foreign interference. But even now that relative peace and security have been restored to Afghanistan, it seems that this foreign intervention has not come to an end yet! The European Union has often shown that, unlike the United States, it holds a rather realistic and unbiased attitude toward international issues. But apparently some EU members like Germany tend to follow the interventionist and domineering U.S. policy toward other countries, especially those in the Third World.

Besides the interfering remarks made by the German cooperation minister about Afghanistan, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also made some intrusive comments about the Islamic Republic by criticizing what he alleged were human rights violations in this country.

His remarks came at a time when many human rights organizations have severely criticized the German government for passing anti-foreigner laws and weakening the pillars of democracy in that country.

By criticizing Iran's human rights record, Fischer may have intended to divert public attention in his country from the human rights groups' criticism of the policies of the German government itself.

Professor Yavuz Ozoguz, who teaches in Germany, elaborated on the reasons behind Fischer's statements against Iran in an interview. Following is the text of the interview.

Q. Human rights organizations, in the past week, have reported blatant violations of human rights in Germany. Foreign Minister Fischer, however, is accusing Iran of violating human rights. Is the Fischer accusation a means of diverting public attention from the internal problems in that country? A. In the past week some American and Zionist officials have reportedly said that groups in Iran which are against the Velayat-e Faqih (Islamic leadership) should be supported and strengthened.

I believe that Fischer's move should be interpreted in this context.

In truth and in fact, what they want to do is confront the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It should be noted that in recent days Americans have repeatedly circulated threats of a coordinated military operation against certain countries, including Iran.

Ordinary citizens in Germany are not aware which country would be the target of a U.S. attack. They point to Iraq as the most likely target.

Therefore, the anti-Iran statement of Fischer can be interpreted in this context, especially because he shapes German foreign policy.

Another point at issue is Israel. Everybody knows that the Zionist regime is the biggest violator of human rights. Fischer is known to be a supporter of the Zionist regime. Therefore, by accusing Iran (of human rights violations) he is actually diverting public attention from the crimes of the Zionist regime.

Q. Zionist crimes are being committed in the occupied lands everyday. As you said, violations of human rights in the occupied territories have been going on for a long time. Does Fischer's statement mean that he intends to apply double standards in evaluating the human rights records of countries? A. Policies adopted by the Greens have surprised not only the people of Germany but also the supporters of the party. If you recall the promises made by the party during the last presidential election and in the run-up to the formation of the coalition government, you will observe that they are demagogues.

The Greens promised to dissolve the German government. They said some things but the realities are quite different.

The great number of German soldiers currently deployed in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and elsewhere is unprecedented. Modern Germany has never entertained dreams of becoming a superpower, but now that the Greens are in power it is entertaining such a dream.

While the Greens claim they are for peace, the reality is that German soldiers are involved in many armed clashes all over the world. With regard to its double-standard policy, we can conclude that Germany, like the U.S. and other Western countries, is primarily seeking its own interests.

The Zionists also share similar viewpoints with the German government. Zionists enjoy great power and influence in Germany and, therefore, Fischer has been supportive of the regime. He simply closes his eyes to the atrocities of the Zionist regime in the occupied lands and supports their crimes.

The people of Germany do not agree with the country's foreign policy at all. They criticize the silence of German politicians about the Zionist regime's crimes.

The popular opposition to the German policy in the occupied lands was unexpected by the Zionists. Now Fischer is trying hard to save the government from embarrassment. A famous German politician has explicitly said that the German government and nation have great differences on current Zionist policies because the people of Germany are well aware of the Zionists' brutalities.

Q. The Greens also have links with the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) which is responsible for the assassination of many Iranian citizens and officials. If the Greens really respect human rights as they claim to, how can they be cooperating with a terrorist group? A. The European Union has recently included the MKO on its list of terrorist groups. However, I believe that this is an act of demagoguery.

The group has killed many Iranians, including many of the country's valuable talents, and has planted bombs in many parts of Iran in the past two decades. Have German officials, past or present, talked about the terrorist moves of the MKO or have they banned the group's activities in Europe? The answer is "No". The EU action of putting the MKO on the list of terrorist groups comes at a time when the group has no place among the people.

Thus, we should not take the EU decision on the list very seriously. If Fischer wanted to gain his people's trust as well as that of the world, he should have condemned the Zionist regime's atrocities.

But, has he at least criticized the crimes against the innocent people, the children especially? I believe that Fischer is not willing to or is not in a position to do so.

Q. Can Fischer's anti-Iran statement be considered interference in the country's internal affairs? A. I believe that there is a lesson that may be learned by Iranian politicians. Instead of seeking dialogue on irrelevant subjects, they should express their views on the policies of the German government.

Why are Iranian parliamentarians and politicians not criticizing the hundreds of abortions performed in Germany annually? Why don't Iranian politicians bring up the issue that one German girl out of five is sexually abused in Germany? These are clear examples of human rights violations. If Iranian politicians raise these cases of human rights violations in their meetings with German or European authorities, these officials will realize that they have just been too aggressive in their stances and would try to moderate them.

Iranian politicians should not remain silent in the face of derogatory statements by German officials, as this will only encourage them to try to turn world public opinion against the policies of the Iranian government. But, the current situation is that some Iranian officials even go to Germany to invite them to dialogue! On the contrary, Iranian officials should call for meetings with German officials and point out to these officials that the ruling system in Iran is better and more democratic, and that the country attaches great significance to human values. Only when the German attitude toward Iran is good can there be room for meaningful dialogue.