In a special session held on the morning of November 20, 2009, the United Nations General Assembly approved a draft resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran. The United States Senate had passed a similar resolution a day earlier, prompting media sources to herald the two occasions as a constructive step against the Iranian government.
It is no secret that Iran holds a questionable human rights record. In fact, condemning it has become somewhat of a routine among the international community. For the past 15 years, the UN General Assembly has been voting on a resolution concerning this very issue. (During the most recent session, Iran was forced to call the introduction of the resolution draft an “old and worn out policy”).
But for the United States, the recent Senate resolution deviates from those in previous years that have focused on sanctions and Iran’s terrorist activities. Since the June re-election of President Ahmedenejad, the Senate has passed multiple resolutions condemning violence in Iran. Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored the most recent resolution to the US Senate, has taken up the issue on the floor twice already, calling upon President Obama to take action against Iran.
And as often does not happen, the US and UN agreed on the main human rights violations in Iran as highlighted by their respective resolutions; among these:
• Torture and cruel punishment of citizens
• Stoning as method of execution
• Arrests of journalists and protestors in recent months
Both institutions are concerned with the current Iranian government’s treatment of citizens and suppression of the opposition, but for the UN, this is an issue that has preceded Ahmedenejad. Meanwhile, the US has not raised human rights violations under Ahmedenejad’s presidency in the past four years. The timing of the Senate resolution invites some pause for thought: why now?
Certainly, Iran’s image in the international community has weakened since the explosion of protests and use of violence against the opposition after the June elections. Yet, political relations between Iran and other countries, including the U.S., have not changed drastically as a result of the elections. Instead, it was President Obama who significantly altered US policy towards Iran by promoting communication rather than former President Bush’s tactic of aggression and isolationism. And since his election, Obama has been criticized for this strategy by lawmakers, experts, and the media as being too soft. Thus, it’s no surprise that Senate resolutions highlighting the Iranian government’s authoritarianism comes months after President Obama’s inauguration. The Senate resolution suggests that lawmakers are not solely concerned with human rights violations in Iran, but also with a new US President whose policy objectives in Iran are being questioned in Washington.
The UN General Assembly is hardly apolitical either, but the UN resolution vote does indicate overall unhappiness with how the Iranian government reacted to opposition in its country. The UN resolution, introduced by Canada and co-sponsored by the EU and the US, passed with a vote of 74 in favor to 48 against, and 59 countries abstaining.* That’s the highest vote achieved on a draft against Iran’s human rights violations in the past few years. The Iranian government, moreover, was not able to pass a vote for no action, as it has often succeeded in doing in the past.
Undoubtedly, voting on human rights resolutions is politically charged, often stemming from national and strategic interests rather than sole human rights concerns. Saudi Arabia, for example, broke ranks with Muslim countries by voting in favor of the resolution, but the move is hardly a surprise. The country has become increasingly concerned over Iran’s nuclear power and growing political influence in the Gulf region. And as irony often reigns in Middle East politics, Saudi Arabia is nervous about the rather repressed Shia population within its borders, and more than willing to condemn Iran in order to stifle its influence in the region.
Dokhi Fassihian, Executive Director of the Democracy Coalition Project, spent time encouraging countries to take Iran’s human rights issues at the United Nations. As she points out, what is important is not just who voted for and against the resolution, but also who abstained. “Russia and China voted against [the resolution] as they always do. They have a lot of economic interests in Iran. They can also exert influence on other states. So how they feel about a situation will eventually inform a lot of other votes, particularly in Africa. But a lot of countries in Africa, like South Africa and Gambia, abstained. In previous years, a good number would have voted no.”
As Fassihian adds, three-fourths of the member countries did not support the government of Iran, either by voting in favor of the resolution or abstaining. Even Brazil, whose president welcomed Ahmedenejad to his country a few days after the UN vote, chose to abstain rather than reject the resolution. As a rising global power, Brazil is balancing its interests of joining the Security Council by abstaining on sensitive votes.
Ultimately, regardless of the reasons behind a country’s vote, the final vote holds weight at the General Assembly. And with majority vote not supporting Iran, the United Nations sent a powerful message of disdain from the international community.
Meanwhile, the US Senate resolution sent a powerful message to Obama by taking advantage of the fragility of current U.S.-Iran relations. The Senate Resolution was introduced by Senator Carl Levin (D), Senator John McCain (R), Senator Lindsey Graham (R), Senator Bob Casey (D), Senator Nelson (D), Senator Corker (R), and Senator Lieberman (D). The universal support behind the draft indicates that it is not just bipartisan politics in Washington that are thwarting progress with Iran, but a genuine disagreement on how to deal with one of the U.S.’s opponents. In disagreement with Obama’s soft approach to Iran, the Senate wants the US to express its concerns with an aggressive and increasingly militant Iran.
Patrick Disney, Acting Legislative Director at the National Iranian American Council, argues that a resolution such as this allows the Senate to help direct dialogue, not just within Washington but between the U.S. and Iran as well. Focusing on human rights rather than the nuclear issue allows the U.S. to put the Iranian government on the defensive, instead of struggling to find ways to de-legitimize Iran’s growing nuclear capacity.
Yet, as the Senate tries to position itself more forcefully in the Iran-U.S. conversation, it threatens the precarious strategy Obama has undertaken in attempting to deal with Iran. The Senate’s public disdain for the Iranian government not only suggests Obama’s weakening influence, but also faces Iran with multiple messages that threaten direct and productive conversation. The fissure in Washington allows Ahmedenejad an opportunity to co-opt the dialogue of US-Iran relations, as he already has. This past Monday, the Iranian government allotted $20 million to investigate human rights abuses carried out by the U.S. and Britain, most likely as a response to the UN and US resolutions passed last week.
Thus far, President Obama has been able to balance various concerns over Iran with his softer approach of dialogue. In a meeting with President Ahmedenejad in Geneva on October 1, President Obama deviated from the nuclear issue agenda and broached the topic of human rights. Yet, as Iran’s accusations against US’s human rights violations suggest, the Iranian government tête-à-tête with the US has expanded from the nuclear issue to human rights. It is already threatening to transform human rights violations to an issue of East-West squabble instead of a valid concern. If the dialogue turns into a conversation of accusations from both sides, relations will return to the same cold war relations of the past.
Even more detrimental, the Senate resolution hints at strategic interests. The fact that the US rejected the Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes during the recent Gaza conflict, but readily accepted the Senate resolution condemning Iran for human rights violations, should raise eyebrows at Washington’s intentions. For some lawmakers, exhausting the discussion on human rights in a country that the US has been struggling to contain could allow them to legitimize a more aggressive role in Iran, a tactic not unlike the one used in the months leading up to the Iraq War.
“It’s interesting to watch how human rights is used in Congress,” Disney said. “I’m not going to say that there’s no one who doesn’t use human rights issues to advance their political agenda. On Iran, for the longest time under the Bush administration, human rights were used as a justification for a more aggressive policy towards Iran.”
Although Disney adds that he believes the US Senate had good intentions of bringing light to human rights violations, it’s highly doubtful a skeptical Iran is going to take them as such. Instead, the government will probably exaggerate the US’s hostile intentions, even if Washington disagrees with an aggressive strategy.
Ironically, it is the opposition movement – the victim of human rights violations – that will be ultimately weakened as a result of Iran’s further isolation from the West and the rest of the world. As the Iranian government reduces the issue of human rights violations to one of “US’s ploys”, it marginalizes those activists who have been working to demand rights from within Iran. Although the UN resolution has the support of an international community, a similar resolution from one of Iran’s foes is highly sensitive and not very constructive. Unfortunately, even on resolutions condemning human rights violations, political agendas – real or inflated – are not far behind.
*The UN draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran (document A/C.3/64/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 74 in favour to 48 against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.
Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.
Absent: Bahrain, Chad, Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, Iraq, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Turkey.
The 13 Aban demonstrations in Iran commemorating the US embassy take-over in 1979 will gain greater significance as we approach the next public demonstrations on Student day: 16 Azar (December 7).
As most analysts have pointed out, it is by now clear that the post-eletion demonstrations are not going away and that there are [...]
There is a certain buzz in Iranian papers about Ahmadinejad's trip to NYC last week. Echoing Israeli newspapers criticizing of Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks at the UN , the Iranian media is celebrating the unseating of the state of Israel's primary justification for itself.
You must log in to post a comment.