Mr. President, at the outset, I
would like to offer my most sincere felicitations on your
deserved election as President of the General Assembly
and to seize the moment to express appreciation for the
valuable efforts of the Secretary-General.
Our world today is replete with fear and hope — fear
of war and hostile regional and global relations; fear
of deadly confrontation between religious, ethnic and
national identities; fear of the institutionalization of
violence and extremism; fear of poverty and destructive
discrimination; fear of decay and the destruction of
life-sustaining resources; fear of the disregard for
human dignity and rights; and fear of the neglect of
morality. Alongside those fears, however, there are new
hopes — the hope of the universal acceptance of “yes
to peace and no to war” by the people and the elite all
across the globe; and the hope that dialogue will be
preferred over conflict and moderation over extremism.
The recent election in Iran represents a clear, living
example of the wise choice for hope, rationality and
moderation by the great people of Iran. The realization
of democracy consistent with religion and the peaceful
transfer of executive power showed that Iran is an anchor
of stability in an ocean of regional instabilities. The
firm belief of our people and Government in enduring
peace, stability, tranquillity, the peaceful resolution of
disputes and the reliance on the ballot box as the basis
of power, public acceptance and legitimacy has indeed
played a key role in creating such a safe environment.
The current critical period of transition in
international relations is replete with dangers, albeit
also with unique opportunities. Any miscalculation of
one’s own position, and of course those of others, will
cause damage on a historic scale; a mistake by one actor
will have a negative impact on all others. Vulnerability
is now a global and indivisible phenomenon.
At this sensitive juncture in the history of global
relations, the age of zero-sum games is over, even
though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and
deeply ineffective ways and means of preserving their
old superiority and domination. Militarism and the
recourse to violent and military means for the purposes
of subjugating others have shown themselves to be
failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new
circumstances.
Coercive economic and military policies and
practices geared to the maintenance and preservation of
old superiorities and domination have been pursued in a
conceptual mindset that negates peace, security, human
dignity and exalted human ideals. Ignoring differences
between societies and globally imposing Western values
as universal values represent further manifestations of
that conceptual mindset. Yet another reflection of the
same cognitive model is the persistence of the Cold
War mentality and the bipolar division of the world into
the “superior us” and the “inferior other”. Fanning fear
and phobia around the emergence of new actors on the
world scene is still another.
In such an environment, governmental and
non-governmental, religious, ethnic and even racial
violence has increased, and there is no guarantee
that the era of quiet among major Powers will remain
inviolate under the pressure of such violent discourse,
practices and actions. The catastrophic impact of
violent and extremist narratives should not — in fact,
must not — be underestimated.
In that context, the strategic violence that is
manifested in efforts to deprive regional players of
their natural domain of action, containment policies,
regime change from the outside and efforts to redraw
political borders and frontiers, is extremely dangerous
and provocative. The prevalent international political
discourse depicts a civilized centre surrounded by
uncivilized peripheries. In that scenario, the relation
between the centre of world power and the peripheries
is hegemonic.
The discourse that assigns centre stage to the North
while relegating the South to the periphery has led to the
establishment of a monologue in international relations.
The creation of illusory identity distinctions and the
current prevalent violent forms of xenophobia are the
inevitable outcome of such discourse. Propagandistic
and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamophobic, Shiaphobic
and Iranophobic discourse indeed represents a serious
threat to world peace and human security. That
propagandistic discourse has assumed dangerous
proportions through the portrayal and inculcation of
presumed imaginary threats. One such imaginary
threat is the so-called Iranian threat, which has been
employed as an excuse to justify a long catalogue of
crimes and catastrophic practices over the past three
decades. The arming of the Saddam Hussein regime
with chemical weapons and support for the Taliban and
Al-Qaida are just two examples of such catastrophes.
Let me say in all sincerity before this world Assembly
that, based on irrefutable evidence, those who harp on
the so-called threat of Iran are either a threat against
international peace and security themselves or promote
such a threat. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the
world or to the region. In fact, in its ideals as well as in
actual practice, my country has been a harbinger of just
peace and comprehensive security.
Nowhere in the world has violence been so
deadly and destructive as in North Africa and West
Asia. Military intervention in Afghanistan, Saddam
Hussein’s imposed war against Iran, the occupation
of Kuwait, military interventions against Iraq, the
brutal repression of the Palestinian people, the
assassination of ordinary people and political figures
in Iran and terrorist bombings in countries such as Iraq,
Afghanistan and Lebanon are examples of the acts of
violence committed in that region in the past three
decades.
What has been and continues to be practiced
against the innocent people of Palestine is nothing less
than structural violence. Palestine is under occupation;
the basic rights of the Palestinians are being tragically
violated, and they are deprived of the right of return
and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland.
Apartheid as a concept can hardly describe the crimes
and the institutionalized aggression committed against
the innocent Palestinian people.
The human tragedy in Syria represents a painful
example of the catastrophic spread of violence and
extremism in our region. From the very outset of the
crisis, when certain regional and international actors
helped to militarize the situation through the infusion
of arms and intelligence into the country and active
support for extremist groups, we emphasized that there
was no military solution to the Syrian crisis. The pursuit
of expansionist strategies and objectives and attempts
to change the regional balance through proxies cannot
be camouflaged behind humanitarian rhetoric.
The common objective of the international
community should be a quick end to the killing of
the innocent. While condemning any use of chemical
weapons, we welcome Syria’s acceptance of the
Chemical Weapons Convention and believe that access
by extremist terrorist groups to such weapons poses
the greatest possible danger to the region and must be
considered in any disarmament plan. Simultaneously,
I would underline that any illegitimate and ineffective
threat of use, or the actual use of, force will only lead
to the further exacerbation of violence and crisis in the
region.
Terrorism and the killing of innocent persons
represent the ultimate inhumanity of extremism and
violence. Terrorism is a violent scourge and knows no
national borders. But violence and extreme actions,
such as the use of drones, against innocent people
in the name of combating terrorism should also be
condemned. Here I should also like to say a word about
the criminal assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.
For what crimes were they assassinated? The United
Nations and its Security Council should answer this
question — have the perpetrators been condemned?
Unjust sanctions, as a manifestation of structural
violence, are intrinsically inhumane and against peace.
Contrary to the claims of those who pursue and impose
them, it is not the States and the political elite that
are targeted; rather, it is the common people who are
victimized by such sanctions. Let us not forget the
millions of Iraqis who, as a result of sanctions cloaked in
international legal jargon, suffered and lost their lives,
and the many more who continue to suffer throughout
their lives. Those sanctions are violent, pure and
simple, whether called smart or otherwise, unilateral
or multilateral. They violate inalienable human rights,
inter alia, the right to peace, the right to development,
the right to access to health and education, and, above
all, the right to life. Sanctions, beyond any and all
rhetoric, cause belligerence, warmongering and human
suffering. It should be borne in mind, however, that their
negative impact is not limited merely to their intended
victims; it also affects the economy and livelihood of
other countries and societies, including the countries
imposing sanctions.
Today violence and extremism have gone beyond
the physical realm and, unfortunately, have afflicted and
tarnished the mental and spiritual dimensions of life in
human societies. Violence and extremism leave no space
for understanding and moderation as the necessary
foundations of the collective life of human beings and
modern society. Intolerance is the predicament of our
time. We need to promote and reinforce tolerance in
the light of the religious teachings and appropriate
cultural and political approaches. Human society
should be elevated from a state of mere tolerance to one
of collective collaboration. We should not just tolerate
others. We should rise above mere tolerance and dare to
work together.
People the world over are tired of war, violence
and extremism. They are hoping for a change in the
status quo. This is a unique opportunity for us all. The
Islamic Republic of Iran believes that all challenges can
be managed successfully through a smart, judicious
blend of hope and moderation. Warmongers are bent
on extinguishing all hope. But hope for change for the
better is an innate, religious, widespread and universal
concept.
Hope is founded on the belief in the universal
will of the people across the globe to combat violence
and extremism, to cherish change, to oppose imposed
structures, to value choice and to act in accordance with
human responsibility. Hope is without a doubt one of
the greatest gifts bestowed upon human beings by their
all-loving Creator. And moderation means to think and
move in a wise, judicious manner, conscious of time
and space, and to align exalted ideals with a choice
of effective strategies and policies, while remaining
cognizant of objective realities.
The Iranian people, in a judiciously sober choice
in the recent elections, voted for the discourse of hope,
foresight and prudent moderation, both at home and
abroad. In foreign policy, the combination of those
elements means that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as
a regional power, will act responsibly with regard to
regional and international security and is willing and
prepared to cooperate in these fields, bilaterally as
well as multilaterally, with other responsible actors.
We defend peace based on democracy and the ballot
box everywhere, including in Syria, Bahrain and other
countries of the region, and believe that there are no
violent solutions to world crises. The bitter and ugly
realities of human society can be overcome only through
recourse to and reliance on human wisdom, interaction
and moderation. Peace, democracy and the legitimate
rights of all countries in the world, including in the
Middle East, cannot and will not be secured through
militarism.
Iran seeks to resolve problems, not to create them.
There is no issue or dossier that cannot be resolved
through reliance on hope, prudent moderation, mutual
respect and the rejection of violence and extremism.
Iran’s nuclear dossier is a case in point. As clearly
stated by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
acceptance of Iran’s inalienable rights constitutes the
best and easiest way of resolving this issue. This is
not political rhetoric. Rather, it is based on a profound
recognition of the state of technology in Iran, the
global political environment, the end of the era of zero-
sum games and the imperative of seeking common
objectives and interests in order to reach common
understanding and shared security. Put otherwise, Iran
and other actors should pursue two common objectives
as two mutually inseparable parts of a political solution
for Iran’s nuclear dossier.
First, Iran’s nuclear programme — and for that
matter, that of all other countries — must pursue
exclusively peaceful purposes. I declare here, openly
and unambiguously, that, notwithstanding others’
positions, this has been and always will be the objective
of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s
security and defence doctrine, and contradict our
fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our
national interests make it imperative that we remove
any and all reasonable concerns about Iran’s peaceful
nuclear programme.
The second objective — acceptance of and respect
for the implementation of the right to enrichment
inside Iran and the enjoyment of other related nuclear
rights — provides the only path towards achieving the
first objective. Nuclear knowledge in Iran has now
been domesticated and nuclear technology, including
enrichment, has already reached an industrial scale.
It is therefore an illusion and extremely unrealistic
to presume that the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear
programme could be ensured by impeding the
programme via illegitimate pressures.
In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran,
insisting on enjoying its rights and the imperative of
international respect and cooperation in this exercise,
is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and
results-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and
ensure the removal of mutual uncertainties with full
transparency.
Iran seeks constructive engagement with other
countries based on mutual respect and common
interests and, within the same framework, does not
seek to increase tensions with the United States. I
listened carefully to the statement made by President
Obama today in the General Assembly. With efforts
commensurate with the political will of the leadership
in the United States, and hoping that they will
refrain from following the short-sighted interests of
warmongering pressure groups, we can arrive at a
framework to manage our differences. To this end, equal
footing, mutual respect and the recognized principles
of international law should govern our interactions. Of
course, we expect to hear a consistent message from
Washington, D. C.
In recent years, a dominant message has been heard
reiterating again and again that the military option is
on the table. Against the backdrop of this illegal and
ineffective assertion, let me say loud and clear that peace
is within reach. So, on behalf of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, I propose, as a first step, the consideration by the
United Nations of a project to be known as “A World
Against Violence and Extremism”. Let us all ride this
wave. I invite all States, international organizations and
civil institutions to undertake a new effort to guide the
world in this direction. We should start thinking about
a coalition for enduring peace across the entire globe
instead of ineffective coalitions for war in various parts
of the world.
Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran urges the
Assembly and the entire world community to take a
step forward by accepting our invitation to join A World
Against Violence and Extremism. We should accept and
be able to open up new horizons in which peace will
prevail over war, tolerance over violence, progress over
bloodshed, justice over discrimination, prosperity over
poverty and freedom over despotism. As beautifully
stated by Ferdowsi, the renowned Iranian epic poet:
“Be relentless in striving for the cause of good;
Bring the spring, you must;
Banish the winter, you should.”
Notwithstanding all the difficulties and challenges
before us, I am deeply optimistic about the future. I
have no doubt that the future will be bright, with the
entire world solidly rejecting violence and extremism.
Prudent moderation will ensure a bright future for
the world. My hope, aside from personal and national
experience, emanates from the belief shared by all
divine religions that a good and bright future awaits the
world. As stated in the Holy Koran:
“And certainly We wrote in the Book after
the reminder that (as for) the land, My righteous
servants shall inherit it.” (The Holy Koran, XXI:105)