Iran

It is a source of profound satisfaction to see a diplomat of the experience of Mr. Razali Ismail, representing Asia and the friendly and brotherly country of Malaysia, presiding over the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. I wish to congratulate him on his well deserved election. I am confident that, with his abilities, he will be able to steer the work of this important session in an exemplary manner. I assure him of the full cooperation of the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in discharging his important mandate. The developments during the last decade on the global scene, particularly the demise of the bipolar international system and the need to replace it with a new 24 world order, have created many hopes and expectations. Nations around the globe, irrespective of their diverse cultures, customs and religions, expected that on the threshold of the twenty-first century the process for the creation of a new world order characterized by collective participation and human development would emerge in a climate governed by realism and a sober grasp of the essence of the ongoing changes in international relations. The essence of these international developments was indeed the overwhelming rejection at the national level of totalitarianism and dictatorship, with a profound message for humanity at large: if we desire to construct a world of collective participation and human development we must build international relations on the foundations of justice, tolerance, the rule of law, cooperation and transparency. Human society hoped and expected that justice would guarantee the inalienable rights of all individuals, nations and States through a rejection of hegemony and special privileges for a dominant few; they hoped that, through recognition of diversity of cultures and beliefs, as well as respect for the rights of all States, tolerance would facilitate intercultural communication and mutual understanding, thereby enriching common human civilization and empowering all members of the international community to participate fully and effectively in determining the shape and setting the norms and standards of behaviour in a future world. They hoped that the rule of law would ensure the security and legitimate interests of individuals, groups and States. Cooperation would replace confrontation, bringing about joint human efforts to resolve common problems and to further common objectives. Transparency, by providing objective and clear explanations and solutions to global issues, would consolidate mutual confidence at the international level. In such a world, the United Nations occupies a paramount position. It embodies the hopes and aspirations of the entire membership of the international community, and as such, provides a suitable framework for collective, transparent and rule-based international decision-making and implementation geared towards the promotion of the common good and the resolution of common ills. The convening of many international conferences in the past decade to articulate and codify further norms of behaviour for an orderly new system, the relative success of the United Nations machinery in preventing and de-escalating many international and regional conflicts, and the constructive debate on reinvigorating the General Assembly and reforming the Security Council are positive examples providing hopeful signals in that direction. On the other hand, amid competition and rivalries for the shaping of the emerging world order, a new phenomenon has surfaced. This phenomenon is so distant and alien from the universally envisaged world of collective participation and human development that its consolidation and persistence would send any hope for a global human society to the oblivion of more rivalries and insecurity. Indeed, concurrent with the expansion of participatory democracy in many countries, a complex movement has emerged towards autocracy or even totalitarianism at the international level, a trend which is founded on hegemony and flouts justice, freedom, participation, the rule of law, tolerance, human rights, pluralism and democracy in a dangerous and unprecedented manner. The evident behavioural characteristics of this menace, disguised behind appealing facades, can be summarized in the following manner: first, there is unilateralism, which means a total lack of commitment to mutual cooperation and common solutions, and complete reliance on unilateral measures in various fields. Second comes opportunism, in which international forums are resorted to only as mechanisms for the promotion of national self-interest and often in pursuit of a domestic agenda. Third, there is secrecy, which takes the form of an insistence on dogmatic, non-transparent and closed methods and a rejection of transparency, which impedes the abuse of multilateral arrangements. Fourth comes lawlessness, which is the evasion of the rule of law coupled with audacity in breaking the law and universal norms, even in a public and official manner. Fifth we have imposition, which means the promotion of domestic agendas and national priorities through the imposition of policies on others, including through the extra-territorial application of domestic legislation. And sixth there is coercion, the unbridled recourse to the threat and use of force in international political, economic and commercial relations. The most notable manifestation of the new international totalitarianism surfaces in the cultural sphere. Our world is characterized by a diversity of religions, civilizations, cultures and customs. This diversity has naturally resulted in the emergence of many systems of law and values, with similarities as well as differences. Regrettably, the claimants of world leadership have either failed to grasp this self-evident reality due to their own lack of historical and cultural depth or have found it 25 incompatible with their interests and therefore attempt to neglect it. More regrettable is the fact that the collaboration of certain other States in this field has exacerbated such opportunistic intolerance. In this context, the misguided propaganda waged to distort the image of Islam, and the unprecedented intolerance exhibited against the tide of Islamic resurgence among Islamic nations and States indicate a futile campaign to suppress this great divine religion of justice and tolerance, and of defiance against oppression, tyranny and domination. The claimants of world leadership have yet to realize that a people’s religious devotion is intertwined with its very existence, and will only draw more strength and resilience in the face of campaigns of external pressure and negative propaganda. The progressive march of the Islamic world, which benefits from the rich heritage of Islamic culture, history and civilization, cannot be halted. Thus this significant and important segment of humanity will certainly occupy an increasingly prominent role in the shaping of the future world order. The irreconcilability of totalitarianism with the rule of law has had dangerous manifestations on the international scene. The passing and signing of legislation to allocate money for subversive and terrorist activities against the Islamic Republic of Iran is the most dangerous manifestation of this lawlessness, which is no longer confined to the secrecy of intelligence services but has been recklessly made into law by the United States Congress. This law and similar unlawful behaviour, including the infamous decision of the United States Supreme Court approving kidnapping by the United States Government, represent a very dangerous trend. They illustrate a growing tendency to institutionalize and even legalize illegality and disregard for international obligations. A similar pattern of behaviour that has been manifested in the past several years by the United States Government is the self-arrogation of the right to legislate for the international community by attempting to apply its domestic legislation beyond its borders. Recent unilateral sanctions enacted by the United States against the trading partners of a number of countries not only constitute a grave breach of various norms and principles of international law and many resolutions of this Assembly and other international forums as well as blatant interference in the internal and external affairs of other States, but, indeed, point to a very dangerous trend, which undermines the very foundations of contemporary inter- State relations. The rejection of such legislation by various Governments and international forums along with universal resistance against their application illustrate the fact that unilateral interference, the imposition of policies and the self-arrogated leadership of one State over the national priorities and external relations of others cannot and will not be tolerated by the international community. The Islamic Republic of Iran has referred these two pieces of legislation to the pertinent international tribunal. We strongly believe that unless this dangerous trend is arrested at the earlier stages of inception, it will have irreversible implications, including the undermining of the credibility and reliability of international undertakings. If outlaws are left to trample upon the rule of law, peace and security around the globe will be in peril. The same general tendency of domination has debilitated the Security Council, which has repeatedly fallen prey to the interests of a permanent member. The Council, for example, not only failed to prevent the Israeli attacks against defenceless Lebanese women and children in a United Nations compound, but also turned a blind eye to reports substantiating the deliberate nature of the atrocity, thus putting aside its humanitarian and Charter responsibilities in the interests of the political considerations of supporters of Israel. Relying on such unconditional support, the Zionist regime pursues with impunity its expansionist policies of occupation in Palestine, southern Lebanon and the Syrian Golan Heights, as well as its routine practice of State terrorism and blatant violation of the most fundamental rights of the Muslim people of Palestine. Israel has neither regard for international law nor any commitment to peace, its only objective being the consolidation and expansion of its occupation of the territories of others. Considering these realities, the only logical conclusion is that peace in the Middle East requires a just and comprehensive resolution of the question of Palestine through the return of all Palestinian refugees to their homeland, the exercise of their inalienable right to self- determination and the liberation of all occupied territories. It is noteworthy that the mere expression of such realistic analyses by a sovereign State is misportrayed as opposition to peace and provides the pretext for concern, anger and even illegal political pressure. In other words, the new international autocracy, contrary to its proclamations of support for freedom of expression, cannot tolerate the least dissenting view regarding its destructive policies. 26 The prevalence of such attitudes in the Security Council has clearly shown that the Council needs fundamental and substantive reform and modification, particularly in its rules and decision-making procedures. The realities of today’s international scene are so different from those prevailing in the aftermath of the Second World War that the Security Council is weakened by its present structure and prevented from meeting the new challenges. On the other hand, the General Assembly enjoys greater credibility in view of its relatively universal, democratic and transparent character. This supreme body of the Organization should not become the forum for general and inconclusive discussions. The Assembly, in accordance with the Charter, must assume its rightful place as the primary decision-making body on important international political and economic issues. In today’s world, the imperative of global participation and collective effort in the advancement of common objectives and the resolution of international problems is self-evident because of the mutual interdependence of the members of the international community. One of the most notable areas for serious cooperation involves the challenge of combating all forms of terrorism. Regrettably, the same Government that has engaged in sponsoring and aiding various forms of terrorism — through, inter alia, appropriating a budget for subversive operations against Iran, harbouring and assisting acknowledged terrorists, and supporting Israeli state terrorism, mass murders and abductions — has also prevented serious international action in this regard by irresponsibly levelling unsubstantiated accusations against others. I reiterate in this Assembly that levelling politically motivated accusations against one or a few States, groups or regions cannot and will not help in the resolution of this major international problem. The eradication of this international menace requires serious global cooperation based on the following criteria: condemnation and rejection of all forms of terrorism, regardless of the identity of the victims or perpetrators and irrespective of their political tendencies and objectives; refusal to provide sanctuary to terrorists or terrorist groups and prevention of operations by or on behalf of terrorists; and cessation of all baseless and unsubstantiated propaganda and allegations. We once again reiterate our commitment to participating in any serious, comprehensive and rule-based universal cooperation to combat and eradicate this inhuman phenomenon. In the field of disarmament and in its efforts to end the nightmare of nuclear holocaust, the international community has been plagued by unilateralism, secrecy and evasion of the rule of law. Ironically, in recent years, the major arms producers and suppliers have exhibited more concern over their proliferation than have those States that do not possess such sophisticated weaponry. At the same time, the former have been reluctant to accept any scheme of general and comprehensive disarmament under credible international monitoring. Some nuclear Powers and their allies continue to include the doctrine of nuclear response against non- nuclear threats in their defence alliances. In the International Court of Justice, these very Powers made every effort to prevent the Court from rendering a decision outlawing the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. During the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on the finalization of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, in contravention of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal requirement of good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, any reference to nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework faced strong opposition by a small number of nuclear Powers. In the same negotiations, insistence on unilateral, non- transparent national technical means — as opposed to a multilateral and transparent international monitoring system — created a major obstacle for consensus. Even the commonly accepted principle of negotiations to resolve these and other problems and to attain consensus on this vital international instrument was vetoed. This undemocratic and dogmatic procedure resulted in the Assembly’s approval and opening for signature of a defective Treaty that does not reflect an international consensus. We, along with many other non-aligned States, will join the signatories of this Treaty solely because of our commitment to be an active participant in any effort to combat the inhumane weapons of mass destruction, while at the same time redoubling our efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapon free world. Non-proliferation policies have also been marred by discrimination, shortsightedness and ambiguity. On the one hand, Israel’s nuclear-weapons programme has continuously received the direct and indirect political and technical support of one State; on the other, the interventionist policy of coercive deprivation of other countries in the same region of their inalienable right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has become a cornerstone of the foreign policy of the very same State. 27 The dissemination of false allegations to instil fear and anxiety, the depiction of an imaginary enemy and the fanning of division and tension have often been employed as pretexts to justify an external military presence and intervention as well as mind-boggling sales of excessive and unnecessary weapons systems. This behaviour characterizes the United States policy in the Persian Gulf, which has only resulted in the exacerbation of insecurity and instability within and between States of the region. In spite of obstructions and misinformation campaigns, the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to articulate and pursue initiatives and measures aimed at fostering greater regional confidence; enhancing respect for principles of international law; bringing about transparency in armaments and reduction of military spending; creating zones free from weapons of mass destruction; strengthening peace and security through persistent endeavours to encourage and facilitate understanding and conciliation; and consolidating economic cooperation. In Central Asia and the Caucasus, cognizant of the religious, cultural, historical and commercial bonds that exist among member States of the Economic Cooperation Organization, the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried in earnest to expand areas of cooperation among member States of that important regional organization. The expansion of transportation networks, including the revival of the Silk Road, provides the possibility for a dramatic increase in the volume of trade not only among member States but also between them and other countries of Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf. Regarding Afghanistan, in pursuance of our mediation and in view of the fact that the return to peace and stability there requires all States, particularly those in the region, to use their influence in order to convince the warring factions to stop the vicious cycle of fratricide, we plan to convene a regional conference next month in Tehran, with the participation of regional foreign ministers and representatives of the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. As regards the crisis in Tajikistan, we have used every means available to us to bring the positions of the parties to the conflict closer to each other, in the strong belief that these differences cannot be settled through force or by military means. Considering the consequences of the expansion of the conflict, more coordination and cooperation among regional States and between them and the United Nations are imperative. In Karabakh, we welcome the establishment and continuation of the ceasefire and believe that this conflict can only be resolved through negotiations, withdrawal from occupied territories and the return of refugees to their homelands. The Islamic Republic of Iran, enjoying friendly relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, is prepared to continue its efforts towards the resolution of this conflict in cooperation with other States in the region. In northern Iraq, the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been founded on maintaining the security of our border areas and the prevention of terrorist infiltration, coupled with consistent emphasis on and respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as on the prevention of tension and conflict between various Iraqi Kurdish factions. Regrettably, obstructionist and monopolistic tendencies, as well as self-serving interventions and indifference, have resulted in a grave humanitarian nightmare and the influx of hundreds of thousands of innocent refugees across Iran’s borders. As a cornerstone of its foreign policy, Iran has always pursued the promotion and strengthening of peace and understanding not only in the region but also in the world at large. During the recent visit of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Africa, our efforts to bring about reconciliation between Sudan and Uganda led to the signature of a memorandum of peace between the two neighbouring States and we hope that, with everyone’s cooperation and understanding, a more lasting peace can be attained. Our world today, more than at any other time, needs and deserves morality, security, mutual respect and confidence, the rule of law, the participation of all and collective cooperation for human development. The new international totalitarianism, notwithstanding its deceptive facade, is inherently antithetical to these values and constitutes the very negation of the recent achievements of human society. The progressive evolution of the international community can be achieved not by replacing domestic dictators with international tyranny, but only through a collective endeavour to achieve common human ideals and aspirations, including, inter alia, understanding 28 through respect for holy values and mutual tolerance for the cultures and beliefs of others; collective participation and cooperation in the resolution of international issues within a free, democratic and transparent decision-making process; security through the rule of law and practical commitment to international norms and obligations; and the re-direction of energies and resources from coercion and the arms race to universal respect for human rights and human development in all of its cultural, moral, social, political and economic dimensions.