Iran, 1994

May I at

the outset congratulate Mr. Amara Essy on his well-

deserved election to the presidency of the forty-ninth

session of the General Assembly. Allow me to emphasize

my delegation’s complete readiness to cooperate with him

and other delegations during this session. I also wish to

express my satisfaction at the presence of the delegation of

the democratic Government of South Africa at this session.

On the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the United

Nations, this session of the General Assembly presents us

with the opportunity to envisage a better world based on the

principles of the Charter and the shared values and

aspirations of its members. The only path to the

achievement of this vital goal is the examination of past

performance, a sober analysis of present circumstances and

the formulation of a renewed vision of the future of

international relations in accordance with the Charter.

In the past 50 years the United Nations has succeeded

in some areas, including decolonization. Yet the rivalries

between the two super-Powers did not allow the

Organization to accomplish its mission in full. In the area

of disarmament, the United Nations was not able to play a

significant role, and substantive negotiations were

conducted outside the United Nations system. By the same

token, the role played by the Organization in economic

development was heavily influenced by similar rivalries

between East and West, resulting in economic relations

devoid of justice and parity. In addition, the cold war was

a factor in shaping the structural make-up of the

Organization, and so the United Nations was deprived of

the opportunity to be a true agent of change.

During the past 50 years of its existence the United

Nations has had its share of challenges. Yet never before

has the Organization faced such a historic and serious

challenge in self-renewal as it does at present, when we

have reached a crossroads in the history of international

relations. Naturally, to meet the challenge of today’s

numerous rapid changes, the Organization must rid itself

of the very constraints imposed upon it by the era of

rivalry between the super-Powers.

But, alas, a few self-proclaimed victors of the cold

war feel entitled to dictate the new criteria that determine

international relations and guide the United Nations and,

more specifically, the Security Council, arrogating to

themselves the right to impose their own vision and

self-serving interpretations on the rest of humanity. The

transformation of the Security Council into an instrument

for justification or enforcement of policies of a number of

permanent members is not at all compatible with the spirit

of the Charter and contradicts the very letter of Article

24, according to which the Council acts on behalf of the

entire membership of the Organization. Contrary to the

assumptions of a few, the Security Council is no one’s

private domain and should not be abused to revive the

gunboat diplomacy of some Powers. A body charged

with the grave responsibility of maintaining international

peace and security must not be influenced and

manipulated by those Powers that have historically sought

to serve their own self-interest at the expense of

international peace.

The failure of the Security Council to adopt a

balanced approach in dealing with various crises and its

persistent application of double standards, due to

manipulation by some permanent members, have in effect

prevented the Council from discharging its primary

responsibility in accordance with the Charter. The most

vivid illustration has been the silence of the Security

Council and its failure to adopt resolute measures in the

face of repeated acts of aggression committed by Israel

against the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. How

can the Security Council supporters of the regime

occupying Palestine allow this expansionist regime to

continue its aggression against neighbours, while repeated

resolutions of the Council demand an end to occupation?

What motives underlie the silence of the Security Council

in the face of overt official terrorist acts by Israel in the

occupied territories and in South Lebanon? The massacre

of Muslims in the Al-Khalil Mosque, the bombing of

residential areas in South Lebanon, the kidnapping of

Lebanese citizens, and other such incidents portray the

bitter reality that Israel has come to believe that, with the

support of a number of powerful States, it can continue

such behaviour with impunity.

Israel’s real and ultimate objective has been to

continue its occupation. Today, under the disguise of the

peace process, this very policy is being pursued through

37

the repression of Muslims and all opponents of the illegal

and aggressive Israeli occupation. Therefore, in our view,

the current process lacks realism, fails to adhere to

universal principles and therefore will not lead to real

peace. The comprehensive and just solution to the

Palestinian issue lies in the full realization of all the rights

of the people of Palestine, including the return of all

Palestinian refugees to their own land, enabling them to

exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, and the

liberation of all occupied territories.

The unprincipled approach of the Security Council

vis-à-vis different crises and aggressions is also

demonstrated by its questionable handling of the aggression

against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For more

than two and a half years, the defenceless Muslims of

Bosnia have been resisting foreign aggression, "ethnic

cleansing", massacre and the gradual annihilation of their

nation. Despite the adoption of countless resolutions and

statements, and in fact because of the lack of political will

to deal with the roots of the crisis, the Security Council has

not only failed to implement its own resolutions, but in fact

has empowered the aggressors to continue their atrocities

and has prevented a State Member of the United Nations

from exercising its inherent right of self-defence through its

resistance to the appeal of the international community to

lift the unjustifiable arms embargo against the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

From the very beginning of the crisis, the Government

of Bosnia has participated in all negotiations in good faith,

even though most of the peace plans proposed by mediators

have been unjust. The Government of Bosnia has amply

demonstrated its sincere desire for peace. On the other

hand, the aggressors and their supporters have, through a

policy of procrastination, created an impasse in the

negotiations by mocking all the decisions of the Council

and all proposals for peace. However, regrettably and in

spite of previous commitments, no measure to encourage

compliance and punish intransigence and non-compliance

has been adopted by the Council. It was a source of deep

anguish and astonishment to witness a few days ago the

Security Council prematurely rushing to reward Serbia for

nothing more than a tactical move, while months after the

acceptance of the latest peace plan by the Government of

Bosnia and its rejection by the Serbs, no decision has been

made to fulfil the commitment of the five-nation Contact

Group, including the lifting of the unjustified arms embargo

against Bosnia.

In their recent gathering in Islamabad, Islamic

countries expressed their determination to contribute

individually and collectively to the legitimate defence of

the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At this

juncture, a decisive majority among United Nations

Member States are of the view that the implementation of

the arms embargo against Bosnia is illegal. Many of

these countries, in tandem with public opinion, consider

any further waiting for a final pronouncement by the

Council as unjustifiable in the present circumstances.

Thus, we believe that in the interest of its own credibility,

the Council must take action without further ado and

show its respect for the views of an undisputed majority

within the international community.

These examples and the debates of the past year on

restructuring the General Assembly and the Security

Council have clearly shown that the procedures and

methodology of the Security Council must be re-evaluated

and changed in order to enable it to address transparently

and in a just and serious manner issues affecting

international peace and security. Many also agree that the

authority of the General Assembly in attending to matters

of peace and security, as asserted by the Charter, and the

need for greater accountability of the Security Council to

the Assembly must be translated from mere words into

reality. The Council must scrupulously fulfil its

obligations towards the membership of the Organization

at large, on whose behalf the Council operates.

The United Nations will be able to deal with world

issues effectively only when and if all its Members are

allowed to participate equally in decision-making. Most

contemporary international developments cannot be fully

appreciated if looked at in the perspective of 50 years

ago. If we are sincere in our belief that the world is so

changed that we must eliminate all references to "enemy

States" from the Charter, then why not also acknowledge

that there is no further justification for holding on to

privileges granted to the war victors of that time?

Another fundamental issue which must be carefully

considered in our assessment of the first 50 years of the

United Nations activities pertains to the role of the United

Nations in all matters concerning disarmament, including

multilateral efforts to effect total, comprehensive and

non-discriminatory disarmament in the world. Today, one

of the main preoccupations of the international

community is the future of arms control, particularly that

of weapons of mass destruction, which have no

justification in the post-cold-war era. The international

community must identify the hazards attached to

stockpiling and horizontal and vertical proliferation of

these weapons. It must then move to establish

38

comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory

international treaties to ensure the elimination and

destruction of these weapons in the shortest possible time.

Shortly after the suspension of the current session,

States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons will gather to review the effectiveness of

this Treaty over the past 25 years and to decide upon the

extent and conditions of its renewal. To reach a rational

and practical decision, one must answer the question

whether the international community is prepared to accept,

as it has done for the past 25 years, that the nuclear

Powers, on the one hand, be for ever equipped with these

weapons of destruction and that, on the other, the majority

of the signatories to the non-proliferation Treaty remain

deprived of the peaceful applications of nuclear energy.

Iran was one of the first signatories to this Treaty and

has remained faithfully committed to it. But at the same

time, it is one of the many developing countries deprived

of the possibilities of progress and development offered by

the peaceful use of nuclear energy as recognized in the

Treaty. We believe that the unconditional and indefinite

renewal of the non-proliferation Treaty will only lead to the

possession of these destructive and anti-human weapons by

a handful of nuclear Powers and that the rest of the

international community will be forced to live in fear in the

dark shadow of these weapons. The founding of a new

world order on the encouragement and institutionalization

of discriminatory and vague norms, including the conferring

of permanent status such treaties and the proliferation of

discriminatory, selective and non-universal regimes such as

the Australia Group or the London Club, does not augur

well for the future of the international community and the

emerging world order.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a victim of weapons

of mass destruction, has under no circumstances attempted,

nor will it ever attempt, to develop or possess these

anti-human weapons. It thus attaches great value to the

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

despite that instrument’s many inherent shortcomings.

However, in our view a limited renewal of the Treaty can

serve the objective of nuclear disarmament only if careful

attention is paid to the following considerations: first,

nuclear Powers should abandon the doctrine of nuclear

deterrence and commit themselves to a target date for the

complete elimination of nuclear weapons; secondly, the

comprehensive test-ban treaty should be finalized and

unconditionally signed; thirdly, the production,

development, stockpiling of and trade in all fissile materials

for nuclear-weapons purposes must be permanently banned;

fourthly, the security of non-nuclear States must be

guaranteed against the threat of the use of these weapons

by others, which will be possible through an effective

international treaty; and, lastly, access by Governments to

nuclear technology for peaceful purposes should be

guaranteed.

The future of the nuclear-proliferation Treaty also

requires serious consideration of the critical situation in

the Middle East and the nuclear threat posed by Israel.

Israel’s nuclear programme has exacerbated the arms race

in the region and has forced others within the area to turn

to more advanced conventional weaponry. Some States

in the region have made their accession to a number of

disarmament treaties conditional upon Israel’s acceptance

of international regimes established to prevent the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel’s refusal to do

so, which regrettably enjoys the support of a number of

developed nuclear-weapon States, will affect the

perspective of States in the Middle East on the future of

the non-proliferation Treaty after 1995.

In addition to Israel’s continuous threats, interference

by foreign Governments in the affairs of regional States

has led to negative perceptions and perspectives within

the region that have impeded serious dialogue and

consideration of constructive suggestions for creating

peace stability and security in the Middle East and the

Persian Gulf.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, which possesses the

longest shoreline along the Persian Gulf and the Sea of

Oman, has been well aware of its role and responsibilities

in promoting and maintaining peace and security in the

area and has spared no effort in this regard. Today, the

largest portion of Iran’s national budget is devoted to

economic and social development and to reconstruction.

Many of our military industries have been transformed

into non-military units. Despite the volatile nature of our

region and our own bitter experience as a victim of

aggression, only an average of 1.6 per cent of Iran’s gross

domestic product is allocated to national defence, while

some neighbouring countries continue their purchase of

huge stockpiles of weapons.

We firmly believe in the imperative of developing

regional security arrangements that ensure the

participation of all Persian Gulf countries. Such

arrangements would diminish the arms race and guarantee

the free flow of oil and economic development and

prosperity in the area. The religious, cultural, historical

and commercial commonalities of the countries of the

39

region make it incumbent upon us to effect and expand

trust and cooperation through bilateral and multilateral

initiatives. We propose here the creation of a forum, with

the participation of the Persian Gulf countries, to review

and develop confidence-building measures compatible with

the requirements of the region. The maintenance of

security in the Persian Gulf is the responsibility of the

countries surrounding this strategic waterway. Foreign

Governments, which have often been the source of

instability and insecurity in the region, should support

collective regional initiatives for cooperation and refrain

from sowing discord and tension and from other divisive

policies to which they have historically resorted in order to

preserve their interests and justify their presence.

The efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran to reduce

tension in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kashmir and Karabakh

and its consistent affirmation of the principle of respect for

internationally recognized borders, territorial integrity and

non-interference in the internal affairs of others are in line

with its overall policy geared toward the maintenance and

strengthening of stability, security and economic

development in the region.

Our policy concerning Afghanistan has focused on

efforts to prevent war and fratricide and on attempts to

persuade warring factions to negotiate and reach

understanding. In attaining these objectives we have had

comprehensive and constructive cooperation with the United

Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Meanwhile, we have continued our humanitarian assistance

to Afghanistan and now act as host to about 1.5 million

Afghan refugees remaining in our country.

In efforts to settle the crisis in Tajikistan, while

cooperating with the Secretary-General of the United

Nations and organizing the second round of inter-Tajik talks

in Tehran, we have continued our high-level contacts with

the warring parties and others concerned. Last week,

following an extensive mediation effort by Iran, it was

possible to arrange serious meetings and negotiation in

Tehran between the two parties, represented at the highest

level. As a result, an agreement to halt hostilities and to

release prisoners and war captives was signed by both sides

in Tehran in the presence of representatives of the

Secretary-General and the Russian Federation.

In all these peace-making efforts we have welcomed

consultation and cooperation with all interested States and

international organizations to contain these crises and

prevent or mitigate their disastrous humanitarian

consequences.

In Central Asia and the Caucasus, expansion and

strengthening of relations in all spheres, particularly those

of economic and cultural cooperation with neighbouring

countries, are being vigorously pursued to facilitate and

ensure sustainable development in the region, build an

atmosphere of mutual understanding and consolidate

stability. As a founding member of the Economic

Cooperation Organization (ECO), the Islamic Republic of

Iran is actively engaged in promoting free trade and joint

ventures among the States members of this organization.

Iran is hopeful that ECO’s observer status at the United

Nations attained last year will help enhance collaboration

between ECO and various United Nations organs and

agencies.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has also endeavoured

to establish a Caspian Sea cooperation council that would

ensure and monitor environmental protection and proper

utilization of its resources by littoral States. These

regional efforts have laid the groundwork for multilateral

cooperation between Iran, Central Asian States and

industrialized countries.

Another major problem in the United Nations during

the past decades has been the selective recourse to - and,

indeed, manipulation and exploitation of - human

concerns and anxieties to meet questionable political

agendas. In this body a minority, whose past records are

far from impeccable, have arrogated to themselves such

concepts as human rights and democracy and

systematically used them as instruments of political

pressure without any basis in reality or any justification.

Such an approach makes human rights subservient to

political interest and is designed and is being followed

solely to further political ambitions and impose the values

of a specific group over the historical, political, economic,

social, religious, and cultural values of others.

At the World Conference on Human Rights in

Vienna and the recent International Conference on

Population and Development in Cairo, the failed attempts

of a minority discontented with divine moral values to

impose their ideas and ways on the religious majority

illustrated the undisputed imperative for developing a

clear and precise appreciation of and respect for divine

teachings and values and religious beliefs. These two

Conferences showed that a good number of States,

particularly Islamic countries, cherish their religious

values enough to attribute more priority to defending their

divine values and Islamic teachings, which guarantee the

moral and material health of our societies, than to

political considerations; they resisted, in a united front,

40

any attempt to disregard, undermine or desecrate these

values.

For Muslims, the remarks made by the leader of the

Norwegian delegation at the Cairo Conference were

especially intolerable, insulting and simply erroneous. We

repeat our call to the Norwegian authorities to take the

necessary remedial measures, to refrain from repeating such

statements manifesting religious intolerance and to begin to

recognize and respect the rights of the majority of

humanity, who believe in divine religions.

By the same token, the dangerous phenomenon of lack

of respect and tolerance for the values and beliefs of others

is, regrettably, gaining momentum in Western countries

against Muslim communities. This has resulted in the

violation of their most fundamental human rights and in

their being forcibly deprived of their basic right to maintain

and practise the values and teachings of Islam. We

therefore believe that greater efforts should be made to

foster and promote understanding of, and respect for, the

diverse values of different peoples and nations through,

inter alia, constructive dialogue and the implementation of

a strengthened system of consultation.

A similar problem is manifested in the approach of the

international community vis-à-vis the threat of international

terrorism in all its forms. Political considerations and

reluctance to prevent terrorist activities by groups whose

positions correspond with the policies of certain hegemonic

Powers have indisputably impeded international efforts with

a view to eradicating international terrorism and are thus

unjustifiable. How can the supporters of the overt official

terrorism of Israel declare themselves champions of the

struggle against terrorism and yet have the audacity

arbitrarily to accuse others of supporting terrorism? Why

do these countries prevent any meaningful action against

the Zionist terrorist atrocities in the Ibrahimi mosque in

Al-Khalil? How do they remain totally indifferent to, and

indeed acquiesce in, the recent terrorist explosion that killed

and wounded many innocent pilgrims in the holiest shrine

in our country? In our view, the only way to combat

terrorism is through a comprehensive, uniform and across-

the-board campaign. We need to work together at the

international level to eliminate this anti-human phenomenon

in all corners of the world, regardless of the race, religion,

ideology or political affiliations of the victims or of the

culprits.

Another important challenge facing the United Nations

is the need for political realism and serious consideration of

current and future socio-economic circumstances and their

direct correlation with social stability and peace.

Increasing social complications are directly linked to

chronic economic conditions and the ever-worsening

inequitable international economic relations at the expense

of developing countries. Unless this correlation is

acknowledged realistically and addressed responsibly in

the decisions of international forums, and unless effective

remedial measures are implemented with the necessary

international support and cooperation, further exacerbation

of international economic and social crises will continue

to pose a grave and alarming threat to us all. It is thus

imperative to utilize every opportunity to translate

understandings into action-oriented programmes in order

to bring about the needed improvement in the world

social situation on the eve of the twenty-first century.

Yet one must not forget that what prevents today’s

United Nations from carrying out its economic and

developmental responsibilities is not the absence of

legislation or plans of action. Indeed, the main obstacle

to the implementation of significant existing decisions is

the glaring absence of political will and financial and

technical resources. Therefore, the Agenda for

Development should envisage explicit and practical

mechanisms for the effective and expeditious

implementation of these international agreements.

The experience of the past five decades has

demonstrated that because of the primacy of political

considerations over humanitarian values and the principles

of the United Nations Charter, it has not been possible to

utilize properly the varied and unique potential of the

Organization as a formidable instrument for enhancing

international cooperation, strengthening understanding and

trust, preventing and resolving crises and upheavals,

facilitating economic development, battling social and

international ills such as terrorism and drugs, reinforcing

respect for the exalted dignity, worth and rights of human

beings, and ensuring the common good.

Preparations and planning for the second

half-century of the existence of the United Nations should

be conducted in full cognizance of this shortcoming, and

with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of the

Organization in carrying out those agreed tasks that are of

interest and importance to the international community in

its entirety. Old methods that have lost their credibility

must be abandoned. New ways that are compatible with

the purposes and principles of the Charter while

corresponding to the changing international environment

must be developed. The delegation of the Islamic

Republic of Iran reiterates its full readiness to offer

41

unreserved cooperation to Mr. Amara-Essy and to other

delegations to achieve these goals.