The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly yesterday passed a resolution condemning Iran’s appalling human rights record.
But it was a close-run thing.
Iran tabled what’s known in UN terminology as a “No Action Motion” (NAM). Had that motion passed, any further debate on the substantive resolution (initiated by Canada) would have been blocked. After furious lobbying by Iran and by countries, such as the UK, opposed to the NAM, the the motion failed by just one vote. 78 countries voted for the NAM and 79 against. There were 24 abstentions.
Apparently this result caused gasps in the UN chamber, according to Steven Edwards of the CanWest News Service in this article.
Gasps and other expressions of astonishment erupted in the UN chamber as 78 countries voted with Iran in its call for “no action” on the censure bid – but 79 countries were against, and 24 abstained. Under UN rules, a tie would have defeated the motion.
The main resolution (A/C.3/62/L.43) was adopted by 72 votes in favour, with 50 against and 55 abstentions.
In the resolution the General Assembly expressed “its very serious concern” at a whole range of egregious human rights violations, including torture, flogging, amputations, public executions, stoning, execution of minors, violent action taken against women, and called upon the Iranian government to eliminate all its appalling and cruel practices.
The resolution condemns the…
…increasing discrimination and other human rights violations against person belonging to religious, ethnic, linguistic or other minorities, recognized or otherwise … and in particular attacks on Baha’is and their faith in State-sponsored media, increasing efforts by the State to identify and monitor Baha’is and prevention of the Baha’i faith from attending university and from sustaining themselves economically…
and calls upon the Iranian government…
…to implement, inter alia, the 1996 report of the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, which recommended ways in which the Islamic Republic of Iran could emancipate the Baha’i community.
It is good to see the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran condemned in such strong language.
The Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, portrayed the resolution as the product of a conspiracy:
It is deeply unfortunate that manipulation and abuse of the United Nations human rights mechanisms has become a prevalent tradition and exercise of certain states in advancing their political purposes.
Mr Khazaee condemned Canada as a country with serious human rights problems of its own (!). I have to say the words, “pot”, “kettle” and “black” come to mind at this point. Actually, on second thoughts, that saying would suggest a moral equivalence between Iran and Canada – and it would, in my view, be utterly perverse to accept any claim of moral equivalence between these two countries.
And which countries defended Iran’s position? Well-respected defenders of universal human rights like Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Belarus and Pakistan!
The resolution now has to go before the Plenary of the UN General Assembly and there can be no doubt that Iran will try to force through another No Action Motion. Last year’s NAM failed by 3 votes, this year’s by 1 vote. Nobody at the UN is taking anything for granted.
Bani Dugal, the Baha’i International Community’s Principal Representative to the UN, commented about the No Action Motion:
Yes, very very close. It was nail bitingly tense.
Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Iran, human rights, UN, General Assembly
{ 1 trackback }
{ 19 comments }
Your site is such a valuable and credible news source for the Baha’i faith and important issues, such as human rights. Thank you!
David, many thanks for your kind comment.
I wish I knew the name of the countries who opposed the motion.
By the way: did you see this one?
Iran Protests Against Violation of Human Rights in EU
Isn’t this a game of hypocrisy???
Thanks, Barney, for keeping us up to date. What a world, where human beings are considered so inconsequential to some governments that their rights are denied. Bring on the new world order…
Love
Wendi
Marco, thanks for the link. I had not seen that example of barefaced Iranian hypocrisy. It is astounding.
I have a long list of the countries that voted for and against both the No Action Motion and the substantive resolution. I’m glad to say that Portugal voted against the NAM and for the resolution itself – as did all the EU member states.
Wendi, thanks for your comment. Governments driven by ideologies tend to deny human rights, as do countries that want to poke the US and the EU in the eye. The focus is often more on political alignments than on the protection and flourishing of human lives.
Well, maybe Iran should not be chided for pointing out (perceived) violations of human rights by EU member states or Canada. Regardless of what motivates Iran to do so, and regardless of whether these are ‘true’ violations, this action by Iran by itself legitimizes calling attention to human rights violations in other countries. So taking it seriously may be a good example for what we wish Iran to do.
I’m afraid that Iran only draws attention to alleged human rights violations by other countries in order to take attention off itself. And please note that it draws attention to human rights abuses in countries like Canada or EU member states but never in countries like Libya or Saudi Arabia or North Korea. In other words, Iran is very selective in its accusations aimed at other countries.
This is not to deny that these countries may have human rights shortcomings, but none of them is egregious in the way that Iran’s human rights abuses are. And for Iran to call attention to other countries’ human rights shortcomings, whether real or imaginary, is the height of hypocrisy. Rather like a burglar defending himself by saying that the householder he’s burgled takes paper clips from work.
Sorry, Martijn, I really don’t have any sympathy for the present power holders in Iran, nor do I think taking their vexatious accusations against other countries seriously does any good for human rights.
Barney, I mostly agree with you. Yes, it is rather ’selective’ of Iran to call attention to real or supposed human rights abuses only of countries that happen to take the lead in accusing Iran of human rights violations. And yes, even if all accusations raised by Iran are true, the violations in Iran and some other countries are much, much more serious.
Still, whether or not one has ’sympathy’ should, I think, not dictate our responses. You may be right that taking Iran’s accusations seriously does not do any good for human rights, but I am not yet convinced. It’s like dealing with a child who is being unreasonable – not motivated by justice but by the wish to divert attention of its own shortcomings (not so uncommon, in fact).
Couldn’t it still help to say the unexpected and say yes, you’re right, we should each work on our own shortcomings. We will deal with ours in this and this way. What are your plans to deal with yours? Couldn’t this be a way to cut short the diversion of attention?
Some interesting thoughts there, Martijn. I’m not entirely sure that dealing with Iran is like dealing with an unreasonable child. To me it seems more like dealing with a sociopathic and manipulative adult – altogether more dangerous than the unreasonable child. Iran is, in International Relations jargon, a “rational actor” – in other words, the government acts in what it perceives as the best interests of the state. We may not agree with its assessment, but that’s how it acts.
The unreasonable child, on the other hand, acts irrationally and capriciously “just because it feels like it”. I don’t think Iran is an unreasonable child. There is calculation behind every act the government takes and behind what is said on its behalf by its diplomats at the UN and elsewhere.
Remember the capture by Iran’s naval forces of some British sailors in the Gulf? Every step the Iranians took throughout that episode was choreographed and calculated to make Britain look weak and foolish. And, sad to say, the Iranians were right. Britain was shamefully weak and foolish in the way it handled this crisis,.
It is my belief that to take Iran’s vexatious accusations seriously, even for tactical reasons, would hand Iran a victory and have the Iranians laughing behind their hands at our gullibility.
Let’s compare human rights violations in Iran and in European Union!
1 – How many religious and ethnic minorities are systematically persecuted in EU countries? And how many of those persecutions are State-sponsored?
2 – How many newspapers were closed by EU governments?
3 – How many EU countries have a legal code that discriminates women?
4 – How many EU countries use death penalty? And how many use it against people under 18?
5 – How many EU countries censor internet to its citizens?
6 – How many Prisoners of Conscience are there in EU countries?
Marco, thanks for posting these questions. The answers to your questions demonstrate Iran’s utter hypocrisy.
The nations who voted with or abstained from are equally cause for concern. Many nations are still willing to sell out human rights for: economic reasons, terrorist prevention, etc.
Sadly you are right, Owen. Human rights so often takes second place to other things that drive government policy.
Barney, I agree that the foreign policy of Iran is highly calculated and certainly not haphazard. Nevertheless, it is also unreasonable. Children are similarly intelligent manipulators! My comparison to a child was to see if that may yield a view of how best to deal with such obnoxious behaviour. I would personally try to resist settling for ‘victory-and-defeat’ model. Instead, on the one hand clearly point to unreasonable statements and consistently call for justice, one the other hand always be ready to respond to real concerns and ‘human behaviour’, even though these may be rare and hard to see. Yes I know it’s idealistic
Once again you make some very good points, Martijn. I can see that there might well be merit in your line of argument. But one difficulty in arguing from analogy is in choosing the most useful or appropriate analogy. If one regards Iran as an intelligent child manipulator one might choose exactly the approach you advocate. If, on the other hand, one regards Iran (as I do) as a sociopathic adult, one would choose an entirely different line of action. One would do anything to avoid being drawn into Iran’s inverted fantasy narrative, in which Iran is entirely blameless and everything is the fault of Western “Crusader” states.
Yes, I can see your point, Barney. Let me finish this exchange by expressing my appreciation for your informative and thoughtful blog.
Thanks, Martijn, I have very much enjoyed this exchange of views and I do appreciate your kind comment about my blog.
Barney,
thanks for covering the human rights abuse in Iran. Many in the world have no clue of the atrocities of the Iranian government. These resolutions ( 54 of them !) are great but have no value until UN forces countries to cut relations with Iran until the mend human rights records is mended there. Please also look at my blog which is a translation of some of the Iran human rights abuse news from persian websites. If you e-mail me news about Bahaii’s human rights abuse in Iran, with link to the source website, I will put it there.
http://iran-human-rights.blogspot.com
Thank you, fulorts, for your comments. You are right that many are completely unaware of what is going on in Iran. Others turn a blind eye. Sadly, the desire to trade often wins out over human rights. Your blog should be salutary reading for those who would like to remain ignorant of the appalling abuses in Iran.
I don’t know if you are aware of this blog, run by a Muslim in defence of the human rights of the Baha’is in Iran. It is well worth reading.
Comments on this entry are closed.