Here is the statement by Ambassador Gholam Hossein Dehghani, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at the General Assembly High-Level Thematic Debate on Human Rights:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
Mr. President,
The Islamic Republic of Iran appreciates the initiative of organizing this important event, seizing the auspicious coincidence of the 50th anniversary of the twin international human rights Covenants and the 30th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations itself.
Human rights as a common heritage of mankind is the fruit of joint contribution of different cultures and civilizations, whose principal goal is to uphold human dignity. Tired of the scourge of colonialism, slavery, wars, racism and apartheid, great individuals stood up for the causes of justice, compassion and peace. Indeed, they did not create anything new but resurfacing the virtuous values that were overshadowed for generations by the evils of injustice and dominance. Values that are inherent in human nature, endorsed and promoted by great prophets and as such do not belong to any specific time or location. Such commonality makes the universality of human rights imperative.
Human rights and the values it advocates creates the prospects of a better and safer world. A world based on justice, peace, equality and prosperity. The one that true advocates of human rights dreamed of.
Unfortunately, today's world is not even distantly close to such aspirations as if they were just mere dreams. An instructive indication of a divided world we live in is that only 62 people own as much wealth as the poorest half of the entire world population while the richest %1 own more than the other %99. It is definitely not a peaceful, desirable and just world.
Mr. President,
The place of human rights at the international level should be considered in a broader scope in par with other pressing issues of humanity such as democracy, terrorism, international law, disarmament and more recently climate change and environment deterioration. Take democracy for instance. In a simple and general term- very much in line with the discussions held yesterday under Panels 2 and 3, it implies that people should be practically and freely able to choose who would rule them.
However, for the perceived masters of the world, whose main assumed responsibility is to guard the concentrated wealth and power at the global level, the people's choice is viable as far as it does not interfere with or pose any threat to their critical interests. People who dare to make such wrong choices, even being made under the most democratic terms, deserve unequivocal punishment such as military coup, aggression, sanction or occupation. In case of their allies and clients, however, democracy and respect for human rights are optional. They conveniently protect their allies no matter how grave their records are; while fiercely censure unfriendly States no matter how democratic they behave. Their protection of allies is of course not limited to remaining silent in the face of their atrocities but proactively and arrogantly supporting them against accountability.
Their records on respect for international law, combating terrorism and disarmament are hardly reassuring either. However, the worst impact is yet to be felt by human rights; bearing in mind the exceptional humane values it encompasses and the direct implications that their abuse would leave on ordinary peoples.
Protection, promotion and respect for human rights are is constantly and vigorously abused by the powerful at their convenience. Human rights for them, is considered as a means at the service of foreign policy objectives.
Then, it is well expected and legitimate that the world public opinion continues questioning their integrity and veracity as self-proclaimed champions of human rights.
Mr. President,
Regrettably, the state of human rights in the United Nations is not promising either.
Seventy years ago, the Charter initiated with a solemn yet very significant notion: We the people. However, the overall contribution of the United Nations in addressing the people's genuine interests are highly disputed and questionable.
Obviously, the same selective and cynical national approach towards human rights -and other urgent global issues- tend to dominate the Organization and its activities too. The results of such harmful tendencies have been dire and staggering.
For instance, while everyone concurs that human rights are universal, interdependent, indivisible and interrelated; in practice, double standards and selectivity are the established norms and the regular conduct. Some human rights are considered more significant than others while others are sidelined to a large extent. Even relevant and functioning mechanisms such as the UPR are tainted by certain Member States with politicization and undermined with continued presentation of unwarranted country specific resolutions that do nothing but reduce the revered cause of human rights to a tool for political gains.
A cultural shift is certainly needed within the United Nations. A change that infuses human rights into the system as to enhance its role in promoting fundamental human values such as equality and justice. The United Nations should be capable of defying pressures when serious violations of international law occurs; no matter how big the violator financially contributes to the UN or what powerful country supports it; a UN that is not permeated with the prevalent tendencies of double standards and politicization.
To avoid exclusive focus on developing and poor countries, respect for universality is an imperative for any cultural change within the UN. Alarming growth of xenophobia, racial hatred, Islamophobia, racism and social exclusion as the breeding grounds for atrocities in most economically affluent countries should not fall off the radar.
I would like to conclude with a serious observation that unless we collectively reverse the tide, a big question will continue to hang around on the validity and efficacy of the principles that are applicable only to the poorest and the weakest.
Thank you Mr. President
HR/PS
Your Comment