Two Resolutions of UN General Assembly

 

 

Throughout the history of United Nations, there have been only two resolutions associated with two Iranian presidents, and both have been unanimously approved by members of the General Assembly.

 

The first resolution concerns Dialogue among Civilizations. In 1999, the UN General Assembly unanimously accepted Khatami’s proposal to set 2001 as the year of Dialogue among Civilizations.

 

The second resolution is on Holocaust. In 2006, in response to Iranian President’s remarks on Holocaust being a ‘myth’, a resolution was passed against the President’s stance. The only negative vote belonged to Iran.

 

Both resolutions have been much more important than ordinary resolutions of UN General Assembly and have more profoundly affected developments of the world and Iran. They have been as much unprecedented and of course influential in Iran’s history of foreign diplomacy as they have been in the history of United Nations. In addition to their direct and immediate effect, they have been epitome of two different foreign policies. They have substantially influenced dignity, authority, national security, and national interests of Iran in the past two decades.

 

Submitting Dialogue among Civilizations to UN General Assembly in 1999 by Mr. Khatami, then the president of Iran, received huge attention across the world. This resolution was beyond a political, propagandistic, or theoretical text, although it was considered as a response to the rightist Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory.

 

Huntington’s theory forecasted a war between civilizations in a not-so-distant future, especially between Islamic and Western civilizations. But due to the unique situation of the Iranian president on the one hand, and the international community on the other, this suggestion attracted much more attention than Huntington’s theory.

 

Definitely, if this theory was not proposed at that time, and by the Iranian President in the United Nations, it could remain just as an article or a suggested theory for peace and be archived in the libraries, but its proposition by the Iranian President had a totally different meaning.

 

This proposal introduced a different narration of Islamic beliefs and the Islamic Revolution’s doctrines about relations between countries of the world and it rejected the conventional narrations ascribed to Iran by anti-Islamic and anti-Iranian states. The suggestion clearly included the following notions:

 

-          Iran seeks dialogue with other countries and it is against the alleged isolationist, adventurist policy, or it has put them aside.

-          With an understandable literature, the elected Iranian President whose presence certified the existence of democracy in Iran asks for democratic, peaceful measures for controlling the world and international crises.

-          Stances of Khatami, a Shiite clergy himself, are not only against terrorism and violence, but reveal that these ideas have nothing to do with Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

-          Stances of the Iranian President are not at all conforming to what the United States and Israel claim about Islam, Islamic Revolution, and the Islamic Republic and is totally against them.

-          Stances of the Iranian President show that not only Iran is not a threat to the global peace, but it seeks peaceful means to control crises across the world. The proposition is based on dialogue between civilizations, it prevents bloody crises and stops moves to ruin of peace, and it resolves global crises through peaceful means.

-           The proposition is compatible with the shared values of people around the world to a level that even opponents of Iran cannot reject it and no institution across the world that is formed in the name of peace and peaceful solution of crises can overlook this stance.

 

The foreign policy of the Reform Government that was based on trust-building and détente, and advocated democracy inside Iran and peace for the world was manifested through the Dialogue among Civilizations. This policy and this resolution, as a symbol of the policy, brought five major achievements for Iran’s national security and national interest:

 

1.    Accusations against Iran by its opponents across the world became invalid. Of course due to the ordinary course of international organizations, this policy came into effect step by step and culminated during the early years of 2000s. But it silenced the anti-Iran states from the very beginning. It thwarted the attempts of radical opponents of Iran and isolated them in international organizations.

2.    This policy rapidly removed threats against Iran. If in the spring of 1997 there were serious talks on attacking Iran due to its alleged relation with organizers of Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1999 this idea seemed preposterous and anyone familiar with politics knew that using force against a country that advocated Dialogue among Civilizations was impossible. In such circumstances Israel and the United States became isolated and inactive, and security threats against Iran were fully countered with the policy of dialogue.

3.    This policy rapidly decreased concordance of moderate states of the world with the United States and Israel and actually rendered economic sanctions imposed on Iran by Clinton’s administration ineffective, surprisingly by America’s closest friends in Asia and Europe. They had acquired the belief that not only threats weren’t looming for Iran, but sooner or later Iran would become the land of economic opportunities and they preferred to ignore America’s oppositions (which seemed irrelevant in the new circumstances) and outperform American companies in grasping the new opportunities. That meant that the unanimity United States had struggled for to impose economic sanctions on Iran, had failed due to Iran’s policy of trust-building and dialogue. Signing contracts on Southern Pars projects and launching greatest economic projects from the rise of the Reform Government up to two years ago, were symbols of this success. With its policy of trust-building and dialogue, Iran had achieved the biggest victory against the United States’ sanction policy.

4.    Consequently, for friends of Iran, this policy provided opportunities in the global scene, and decreased pressures. Even the most radical friends of Iran such as Hezbollah found a chance to reinforce their position and defend themselves better than ever and clarify the realities about themselves and their enemies.

5.    This policy countered a major part of Iran enemies’ classic policies in the Middle East. The Israeli regime has always obstructed the way towards any possible peace and opportunities –even meager- for the Palestinian nation and has blamed the Iranian government for this. During the trust-building years Israel’s measures failed and the country was put under pressure more than ever for its hawkish policies. The other repeated accusation against friends of Iran and Shiites through the world was terrorism. This had made life difficult for the Shiite minority in many countries. Trust-building and dialogue diplomacy kept back these polices.

6.    The trust-building and détente diplomacy gradually reinforced Iran’s central role as the biggest regional power to establish peace and security in the region and led to the best situation in the contemporary history after the fall of evil regimes in the region.

 

Holocaust is one of those controversial issues that have been a topic of debate and question during the last 60 years in the world and Middle East. Although there is no doubt about Nazis’ crimes against Jews, but what Zionists claim about the extent of this historical phenomenon and the relation between Nazis and radical Zionists has always been at issue.

 

Promoting a Zionist narration of holocaust and propagandistic use of this event to justify Jews’ immigration to Israel and suppress Muslims of Palestine, has been Zionists’ strategy and they have applied all means possible, from art and policy to rising sentiments and misusing global values such as human rights. However, this strategy had not been that successful and its opponents insisted on a different version of the historical event.

 

When in 1992 The Schindler’s List, a fictional story based the Zionist version of Holocaust, was made by Spielberg, it caused the reaction of people in Middle East and even a group of non-Muslims, but that seemed natural with regard to differences on the nature and extent of Holocaust.

 

In 2006, in a political innovative, seemingly for shifting the scene of political disputes with the powerful countries of the world, the Iranian President declared that Holocaust is a myth and Israel should be wiped off from the map of the world.

 

Apparently those behind this policy believed that the strategy of changing the field of struggles can firstly reduce pressures on Iran due its nuclear program, and secondly give Iran the chance to select the scene of dispute itself. Therefore it could shift to a scene that was apparently the Achilles heel of the opponents. Thirdly, Iran would prove that it will not surrender and if it undergoes pressure it has a lot to disclose.

 

Naturally, this strategy fulfilled the first goal of its planners and took the attention away from the nuclear dispute for some while. But even if this plan has really taken that much elaboration, it should be said that the strategy and its instrument have had fatal mistakes and resulted in irreversible and considerable damage.

 

The immediate consequences of spotlighting Holocaust and Israel are as follows:

 

·         Remarks of the Iranian President were followed by the strong natural reaction of the European community who had suffered Nazis’ crimes during the World War II and could not separate Holocaust and other Nazis’ crimes. The reactions escalated and even lead to demonstrations in support of Israel for the first time in 50 years.

·         Fear from reemergence of new radical right populist movements who appeared in democratic societies of Europe between the two world wars in form of fascism and Nazism is still evident in Europe.

Any kind of debate that denigrates the depth and extent of atrocities that have stemmed from the radical rightist mentality will undoubtedly face the reaction of public opinion and elite and they will deem it as a hidden inclination towards the revival of fascism. This happened in case of Mr. Ahmadinejhad’s denial of Holocaust.

·         Moving center of focus in foreign diplomacy from nuclear issue to Holocaust and instrumental use of this touchy topic to reduce problems in Iran’s foreign diplomacy gave Zionists a chance to successfully associate Holocaust and Iran’s nuclear issue in the world.

·         Iran’s adversaries who declared that our country is aiming to achieve nuclear weapons and fire it towards Israel, took the highest advantage of Ahmadinejhad’s remarks on Holocaust and wiping Israel off the map and managed to convince the world to believed the inconceivable story about Iran’s intentions.

 

The Holocaust issue helped Iran’s enemies in Europe considerably and helped America to establish the security atmosphere it needed to shape a front against Iran. Subsequently, European governments showed more harmony with United States in confronting Iran more than ever.

The additional resolution of January 26^th, 2007 approved unanimously in UN General Assembly was a result of our radical policy. In this resolution, greatest victory of Zionists in the history of United Nations:

 

 

The content of this resolution has quelled any further discussion on Holocaust and has given it a sacred feature and judged it as an absolute fact. For Zionists, it doesn’t seem if there is any other wish which has not been realized with the approval of this resolution.

 

We should keep in mind that the Palestinian nation has always enjoyed more support among the members of United Nations and for this very reason, contrary to Security Council resolutions which are usually in favor of Israel, resolutions of UN General Assembly usually support the Palestinian cause. So the unanimity on Holocaust resolution by UN General Assembly can be regarded as the biggest victory of Zionists.

 

Even if we assume that drawing the Holocaust issue forward by the Iranian President had no other use than supporting the Palestinian nation’s right, issuance of Holocaust resolution shows that even in that case government’s policies have failed and haven’t helped the Palestinians, but they’ve paved the way for Zionists’ measures.

 

In brief we can say that the foreign diplomacy of the present government, for which the Holocaust resolution is a perfect example, has returned all the threats against our national security and national interests which had ended with rise of Mr. Khatami to power, and once again Iran is prone to threats same as, or even worse than, the ones looming 10 years ago.

 

This trend in foreign diplomacy or others which led to results like the Holocaust resolution have had the following outcomes for the national security and interests of our country:

 

1.    They have led to formation of a global united front against Iran and have straitjacketed friends of Iran to hold out against resolutions and decisions taken against Iran. Also, moderate states of the world that usually seek for an excuse to withstand America’s pressures, are highly fettered in opposing United States’ radicalism.

2.    With Iran’s adversaries taking advantage of our erroneous foreign policies, after this development, Iran’s threat to the world has become more acceptable than before. Using extreme moves of Ahmadinejhad’s administration in different cases such as Israel and Holocaust, Iran’s radical opponents have found meaningful pretexts to prove their claims on the country’s military purposes and have made the most of it.

3.    With emergence of Iran’s threatening face, caused by the current foreign policies, trust in Iran has been lost once again. For small states of the region that are afraid of Iran’s new face, this leads to further cooperation with the enemies of our country, and for powerful countries of the world, it leads to exertion of economic and non-economic sanctions.

4.    With the current trend in Iran’s foreign diplomacy, once again doubts have been cast over Iran’s central role in establishing peace in the region and our country has been considered as a supporter of terrorism in the world.

5.    Due to this foreign diplomacy, for which the Holocaust resolution is an epitome, threats against our national security have increased and after 10 years, again there emerges a serious possibility of military strike on Iran.

6.    As a result of this policy, our national interests have undergone considerable damage. Not only our infrastructural development in most of the fields has been halted, but also it is expected that with the toughening of the sanctions Iranians lose their present opportunities for development and welfare.

7.    Outcome of the Holocaust resolution clearly reveals that the current foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not favorable even for its friends around the world.