Who is responsible?
Our mishandling of Geneva Conference turned tides against Iran. By Javid Ghorban Oghli.
United Nation’s anti-racism conference in Geneva was a sequel to Durban conference held in South Africa in 2001. Durban conference was itself a follow-up to two world conferences against racism held in 1978 and 1983 in UN headquarter in Europe in Geneva. The major focus of those conferences was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which was undoubtedly the most hideous regime of 20th century. Holding the conference in Durban probably as a tribute to collective efforts which abolished the apartheid regime and resulted in a democratic, supra-racial system based on the "one man, one vote" formula.
The Iranian delegation attending Durban I conference was headed by the then foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi. Official delegation led by foreign minister included a team of ministry’s deans and experts of the Department of Legal and International Affairs. There was also an unofficial delegation including three MPs and a considerable number of NGO activists who despite their small number (compared with other countries attending the conference) were much effective. Mr. Kharrazi’s companions had entered South Africa two days earlier along with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Deputy Foreign Minister on Legal and International Affairs and moderated the experts’ challenging meetings. As a sign of respect by the host country, the formalities for Mr. Kharrazi were the same as leaders of other countries (such as Cuba, Algiers, and Palestinian Authority).
I would not be exaggerating if I said that the Iranian delegation headed by Dr. Zarif took the lead in proceedings of several committees, including the one which prepared the final declaration. This was the declaration which enraged Israel and United States and compelled them to quit the conference. Even eight years after the Durban conference, United States, Israel and some Western countries are trying to remove some clauses of the declaration. If we have been claiming that except for Iran no other country is ready to confront Israel, then we shouldn’t downplay the role of Iranian delegation that influenced the whole course of conference and every single paragraph of the declaration, especially the one addressing Israel and Zionism. It was their smart, effective diplomacy that realized Islamic Republic’s ends. No Western delegation walked out during Kharrazi’s speech, no one insulted our country and United States and Israel had to their chagrin. The controversial equation of Zionism with racism was the achievement of Iran’s small team who did its job without creating any ballyhoo and turned the conference into an anti-Israeli demonstration.
Last week, along with one of his deputies and three ministers (including foreign minister), the Iranian president attended Durban II conference in Geneva. Despite pressures for removing anti-Israeli sections of Durban I, United States, Israel and some Western countries had to boycott the conference prognosticating that the anti-Zionistic atmosphere would be even more intense than eight years ago. However, Ahmadinejad’s overused, thorny remarks on Israel turned the tide against Iran.
A significant number of delegations walked out of the conference when Ahmadinejad directed his attack towards Israel, clearly a diplomatic offense. He was called a racist, objects were thrown at him and nearly all Western countries and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon harshly criticized his remarks. Most importantly, the conference changed its mood in favor of Israel.
I did not intend to comment but how could one remain silent with the painful happenings of Geneva conference? I don’t know to whom the president is responsible. And I do not want to talk about domestic issues like the annual budget and the argument between parliament and Ahmadinejad over it or Larijani’s sarcastic response to Ahmadinejad. Government’s lavishness in spending 124 billion dollars of oil revenues are not also my question. For all that we know, they are at least spent inside the country and we could make up for them with earnest attempt. But how could we make up for the insult made in the face of Iranian nation when millions of people around the world were watching? Why did we act in a way that even UN Secretary General who was in charge of holding the conference issued an offensive statement against our president? The president is the symbol of a nation and insulting him means insulting the whole nation. Who is responsible for this fiasco which may have driven from personal political ambitions?
In 2001, the Iranian delegation turned an ordinary conference into an anti-Israel furor using shrewd diplomacy and practiced experts; and in 2009 our high-level delegation turned an anti-Israel conference into an anti-Iranian one. Honestly, which was more rational and which better served our interests? I let the readers decide.
The Iranian delegation attending Durban I conference was headed by the then foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi. Official delegation led by foreign minister included a team of ministry’s deans and experts of the Department of Legal and International Affairs. There was also an unofficial delegation including three MPs and a considerable number of NGO activists who despite their small number (compared with other countries attending the conference) were much effective. Mr. Kharrazi’s companions had entered South Africa two days earlier along with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Deputy Foreign Minister on Legal and International Affairs and moderated the experts’ challenging meetings. As a sign of respect by the host country, the formalities for Mr. Kharrazi were the same as leaders of other countries (such as Cuba, Algiers, and Palestinian Authority).
I would not be exaggerating if I said that the Iranian delegation headed by Dr. Zarif took the lead in proceedings of several committees, including the one which prepared the final declaration. This was the declaration which enraged Israel and United States and compelled them to quit the conference. Even eight years after the Durban conference, United States, Israel and some Western countries are trying to remove some clauses of the declaration. If we have been claiming that except for Iran no other country is ready to confront Israel, then we shouldn’t downplay the role of Iranian delegation that influenced the whole course of conference and every single paragraph of the declaration, especially the one addressing Israel and Zionism. It was their smart, effective diplomacy that realized Islamic Republic’s ends. No Western delegation walked out during Kharrazi’s speech, no one insulted our country and United States and Israel had to their chagrin. The controversial equation of Zionism with racism was the achievement of Iran’s small team who did its job without creating any ballyhoo and turned the conference into an anti-Israeli demonstration.
Last week, along with one of his deputies and three ministers (including foreign minister), the Iranian president attended Durban II conference in Geneva. Despite pressures for removing anti-Israeli sections of Durban I, United States, Israel and some Western countries had to boycott the conference prognosticating that the anti-Zionistic atmosphere would be even more intense than eight years ago. However, Ahmadinejad’s overused, thorny remarks on Israel turned the tide against Iran.
A significant number of delegations walked out of the conference when Ahmadinejad directed his attack towards Israel, clearly a diplomatic offense. He was called a racist, objects were thrown at him and nearly all Western countries and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon harshly criticized his remarks. Most importantly, the conference changed its mood in favor of Israel.
I did not intend to comment but how could one remain silent with the painful happenings of Geneva conference? I don’t know to whom the president is responsible. And I do not want to talk about domestic issues like the annual budget and the argument between parliament and Ahmadinejad over it or Larijani’s sarcastic response to Ahmadinejad. Government’s lavishness in spending 124 billion dollars of oil revenues are not also my question. For all that we know, they are at least spent inside the country and we could make up for them with earnest attempt. But how could we make up for the insult made in the face of Iranian nation when millions of people around the world were watching? Why did we act in a way that even UN Secretary General who was in charge of holding the conference issued an offensive statement against our president? The president is the symbol of a nation and insulting him means insulting the whole nation. Who is responsible for this fiasco which may have driven from personal political ambitions?
In 2001, the Iranian delegation turned an ordinary conference into an anti-Israel furor using shrewd diplomacy and practiced experts; and in 2009 our high-level delegation turned an anti-Israel conference into an anti-Iranian one. Honestly, which was more rational and which better served our interests? I let the readers decide.