Iran, 1996

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.