Are there any benefits to castigate Iran?
The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, which concentrates on human rights issues, recently passed a resolution condemning human rights record in Iran.
The resolution, drafted by Western governments, hit out at alleged torture and executions in Iran, “widespread” restrictions of freedom and “pervasive” violence against women.
In response to the passing of this resolution, Iran’s foreign ministry accused the West of using the issue for political gain.
“The human rights mechanisms of the United Nations have become a plaything for Western governments,” ministry spokesman Ramin
Mehmanparast said in a statement.
He said the human rights issue was being exploited by the West to “exaggerate and blacken” Iran’s record.
It should be noted here that the resolution was adopted without the presence of the Iranian delegation, because United States denied visas to Iranian officials hoping to attend the UN meeting in New York.
In other words, Iran firstly was deprived of attending UN meeting contrary to international laws and then a resolution on human rights was passed against the country.
Here a question arises why Iran was not allowed to attend the meeting of the United Nations?
The United States, as a U.N. host country, is obligated to issues visas for members of delegations, in line with a 1947 pact with the United Nations, regardless of disputes with individual countries.
However, it does sometimes refuse entry to government officials and professionals from Iran with which it has had no diplomatic ties since 1979 and which it accuses of seeking nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
Meanwhile, the US act of denying visas to the Iranian delegation proves that America is misusing its position as the host of the international organization.
The Iranian delegation definitively intended to describe Iran’s views on human rights issues in the UN meeting, but the US administration barred Iran’s participation in the meeting, thus depriving the delegation members of the chance of fulfilling their mission of promoting interaction and cooperation within the United Nations.
In addition to the act violating international conventions, the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee passed a resolution condemning human rights in Iran, whereas Iran as a defendant was not present in the court!
Of course, the adoption of such resolutions supported by America against Iran does not seem unusual over the last years.
It should be remembered that every country has rules for its internal issues that is traditionally accepted by its people. It is also true on punishment for breaking the law so that if anyone in America acts against national security, the determined punishment should be implemented. Otherwise, the legal framework in the country will become invalid.
Iran is also an independent country and has its unique Constitution. In many cases, its laws are different from that of other countries such as U.S. This is also true for other countries. For example, having multiple wives is common and legal in Saudi Arabia, but is not common in U.S. This situation has been also seen among U.S’s itself States. The judgment on the laws or its punishments should be done based on people views, culture, economic situation, crime statistics and many other factors.
In Iran, unlike many other countries such as U.S (consider the case of Bradley Manning), the information on prisons and prisoners’ conditions are released and that is precisely why Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has stated some claims against Iran. However, he has compiled its report based on the claims of Iranian opposition groups (that is definitely propaganda). Given to events, media and the experience of IAEA’S reports, Iran no longer has sufficient trust to U.N and western countries and thus prevents Special Rapporteur from entering to the country. Iran claims that if it agrees to welcome Special Rapporteur, really it will politically accept the issue of violating human rights within its boundaries. In fact, past records and behaviors of western countries toward Iran has led to Iranian diplomats’ distrust of the United Nations. In general, the claims on the state of human rights in a certain country without conducting a careful and field study are considered unacceptable. It seems that the only way to solve the problem is to gain of Iran’s trust by western countries.
Interestingly, those countries which voted the resolution condemning Iran enjoy shameful human rights records.
The United States has a history of disregarding human rights abroad at home.
A report released by Information Office of the State Council, China’s Cabinet, states that civil and political rights violations have been “severe” in the United States, adding that the country is “lying to itself” when proclaiming that Americans live in the “land of the free.”
It cited the treatment of protestors participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement, stating that their arrests can provide a “glimpse of the truth regarding the United States’ so-called freedom and democracy.”
Almost 1,000 people were reportedly arrested in the first two weeks of the movement, the report said.
Many protesters accused police of brutality and, as a U.S. opinion article put it, the United States could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian, it said.
The report held that the U.S. imposes fairly strict restrictions on the Internet, and its approach “remains full of problems and contradictions.”
“Internet freedom” is just an excuse for the United States to impose diplomatic pressure and seek hegemony, it said.
Finally, it seems that U.S and other western countries intend to divert public attention from their human rights violations by accusing Iran.
But surely the liberal nations will not affected by such claims and resolutions.