Prepared Remarks by Dr. M. Javad Zarif
Deputy
Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic
of Iran
at
the Foreign Policy Association
New York, October 2,
1997
In the
name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Dear Friends, Ladies and
Gentlemen;
I am delighted
to have the opportunity to be here today, and to engage in a hopefully frank
and serious exchange of views on “Continuity and Change in Iran’s
Post-Election Foreign Policy”. I hope at the conclusion of this meeting, we
could all agree that, if not extremely stimulating intellectually, it was not a
waste of time all together, and that at least we found some food for thought.
I intend to
focus more on the new possibilities in Iran’s foreign policy during the
administration of President Khatami than on the aspect of continuity in order
to cover more ground. I do so for I
presume that all of you who are generally familiar with Iranian affairs have
already accepted the point of departure that the Islamic principles and
the fundamentals of our revolution will
continue to underlie both the formulation and the implementation of our foreign
policy agenda.
In fact, the
mandate of the new president -- who was elected to this high office with sixty
nine percent of the votes cast by nearly ninety percent of all eligible voters
-- is to institutionalize a harmonious relationship between adherence to the
principles and values of the Islamic revolution on the one hand and
comprehensive development and international cooperation on the other. The broad
spectrum of support for the new president, which cut across age, gender,
profession, income, education, and urbanization is clear testimony to this
unique mandate and popular expectation.
The
possibilities of change in Iran’s
foreign policy should be examined within a political and psychological context.
As a people who have successfully experienced an ideologically-driven
revolution, we had to prove to ourselves and to the rest of the world that an
Islamic government is not incompatible with pluralism and democratic rule. We started from the assertion that Islamic
political thought can resolve the erroneous historical dichotomy between
submission to the will of God and respect for the will of the people; between
adherence to Devine principles and empowerment of and accountability to the
people; and as President Khatami puts it “between salvation and liberty”.
The recent
presidential election in Iran
was the climax of this process, which encompasses a continuum of over eighteen
years. It has now been established, according to friends and foes, that, at
least as far as the Iranian experience is concerned, not only the two are not
incompatible, but they are even mutually reinforcing.
Having
established this as a reality, the Iranian nation has now mandated its popularly-elected
government to focus primarily on institutionalization of this achievement and
the development of the country in all its aspects; moral, social, political,
and economic.
You agree with
me that such social trends are irreversible and independent of
personalities. Yet, its positive
international implications depend largely on understanding and constructive
response. Our critics have thus an option to recognize and grasp this historic
moment.
Let me will now
highlight some priorities in our post-election foreign policy.
1. Promotion of the Rule of Law;
We strongly
believe that a healthy international climate requires a commitment by all
states to respect international obligations they have undertaken and a sound
implementation of those commitments. As the Foreign Minister of Iran stated
before the General Assembly a few days ago:
The rule of law
prevents despotism and anarchy at the domestic level and hegemony and war at
the international level. Rule of law constitutes the only proper setting for
the participation of all individuals and nations in shaping their own destiny
and building a better and more prosperous tomorrow for their national societies
and the global community.
Therefore, the
principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of others, non-use of
force in international affairs, and respect for sovereignty and territorial
integrity of other states must be scrupulously observed by all states, big and
small. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to these
principles. On the other hand, unilateral measures, including extra-territorial
application of domestic jurisdiction, is not only the very antithesis of the
rule of law, but in fact disruptive of normal inter-state conduct. Such short-sighted triumph of domestic
politicking over common sense cannot have a fate other than what you have seen
in recent days.
2. Enhancing Confidence, Security and Cooperation in the Region
We believe that
in this complex and interdependent world, all states have a shared
responsibility not only in avoiding provocative acts, but in joint efforts to
find peaceful solutions to our common problems. In addition to the necessary
and fundamental requirement of the rule of law, empowerment, public
participation, dialogue, and tolerance are essential requisite to decrease
tension and find amicable solutions to international problems in a context
where the interest and views of all are taken into account.
We are
determined to pursue this approach energetically in our domestic and global
relations, particularly within our immediate region. The nature and the extent of relations with
neighbors have always been of fundamental importance to Iran, and have
found an even greater prominence under the new administration. The new emphasis
on comprehensive and sustainable development requires calm and tranquil
neighborhood, which has been mostly lacking in the past two decades.
The Persian Gulf has been the scene of two bitter wars,
massive foreign military presence and unparalleled waste of scarce resources on
sophisticated weapon systems. Continued anxiety over Iraqi plans and ambitions
coupled with the plight of Iraqi people exacerbate uncertainty in this region.
Central Asia has been marred by the implications of the
break-up of the old empire and indeed of the cold war and the turmoil
associated with state-building. The conflict in Tajikistan is an example which is
now happily entering into a political settlement phase.
The Caspian Sea, with its vast mineral resources,
particularly oil and gas, has turned into an arena for competing claims of
sovereignty -- generally foreign-stimulated, precluding the necessary
confidence and predictability essential for long-term and mutually beneficial
foreign investment.
In order to
de-escalate tension and promote prosperity and cooperation in the greater
Persian Gulf region and the Central Asia, we plan to take stock of our multi-faceted
commonalities and engage our neighbors in a continued process of communication
and dialogue to ascertain the sources of threat perception and work together to
address them. Expansion of economic and trade relations within the countries of
the region will also help to build confidence which, in turn, reinforces the
political dialogue and the joint effort for promotion of peace and security in
the region.
In the Persian Gulf, we underline the need for mutual
recognition of the legitimate concern and interest of the international
community for stability and security of this region on the one hand and the
proportionate constructive role of all regional states in this endeavor on the
other. We advocate the gradual
establishment of a security and cooperation scheme encompassing all eight
littoral states of the Persian Gulf. Of course, Iraq needs to meet certain requirements
before it can enter. But the important
consideration is that this arrangement should not be envisaged from the
beginning as one excluding Iraq
or one formed to counter Iraq
or any other states within and outside the region.
The Eighth
Summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference, which will take place in Tehran in December, provides a unique opportunity to work
collectively to build confidence not only between Persian
Gulf states, but in fact among all Muslim countries. This will enable Islamic countries to take a
more assertive and constructive role in international affairs.
Turning to
Central Asian states, who will be prominently represented in this Summit, let me underline that in our view the economic
prosperity of Central Asia and the Caucasus
and the diversification of their economies constitute the foundation for peace
and stability in this region. This can
only be achieved through cooperation and inclusion and not through
block-formation and exclusion. For this, Iran
with its partners, Turkey
and Pakistan,
have embraced these nations into the Economic Cooperation Organization. In my view, it is always important to
remember that this region -- with its newly found prominence -- is a permanent
reminder of the collapse of cold war and hegemony. We should not make this very region a scene
for old cold war policies of confrontation and exclusion; now under new guises
and with new targets.
The Caspian Sea and its oil and gas reserves constitute one
important source of revenue for development of the new states. Yet, long term predictability and development
requires a legal regime, which can meet the acceptance of all litoral states,
while at the same time is most responsive to the pressing environmental
concerns regarding this unique body of water, which incidentally is not a sea,
but world’s largest lake. And again,
this may not be so incidental, as it has important ramifications for the legal
regime.
3.
Strengthening of bi-lateral Relations
The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to establish
or further expand its relations with all states, who are prepared to base their
bi-lateral relations on mutual respect and non-interference. Here, let me make a few brief remarks about
U.S. Iran relations. I need not
point out to you the allegations which the United
States levels against Iran. They are well-known, and you
must have heard them often. Support for terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, and since a few days ago long range missiles, and obstruction of
the Middle East Peace Process.
Iran has
repeatedly and categorically denied these allegations. However, most of them
are close to impossible to disprove in public debate. It is very difficult, if
not impossible, to provide negative evidence, especially when allegations are
of an extremely general character and particulars of the actions alleged have
never been provided by the state making those allegations. It is nevertheless worth noting that even US specialists have admitted the absence of
proof as to Iran's
involvement in international terrorism, one commenting for instance, regarding
the State Department’s Report on international terrorism in 1994 that
" if you read the Report... it is remarkably silent on
evidence".
Even the infamous Mykonos case in Germany,
which has been vastly projected as evidence against Iran, is in essence a testimony in
itself to the total absence of any evidence, and the abuse of the judicial
system for political gains. The picture is the same concerning the
so-called threat of Iran
acquiring military nuclear capacity. Iran is a party
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has consistently insisted that it
has complied and will continue to comply with its obligations under that
Treaty. And this is clearly acknowledged
by the IAEA itself, for example in the Report on the Visit to Iran by IAEA in
February 1992.
Mr. Hans Blix, the Head of International Atomic Energy Agency, responding to
allegations that Iran has
deceived the IAEA like Iraq,
has stated in an article entitled “Great Openness in Iran”:
Let me say that Iran is a much more open society than Iraq .... A number of declared nuclear-power plants are
regularly visited in Iran
by IAEA inspectors, without any problem.
Iran
has also promised that inspectors can visit “what place they want whenever they
want”. At two different occasions, one has asked, based on this promise, to
visit non-declared establishment - however without finding anything
Furthermore, in an interview with
Austrian daily Die Presse, Mr. Blix
stated, “we have no reason to believe that Iran is hiding anything from
us.” Responding to an inquiry concerning
American insistence on their allegations, Mr. Blix stated, “in any case, the
agency has not received any document or evidence from the United States or any other source showing Iran’s failure
to fulfil its obligations under the NPT.”
The absence of
evidence concerning supposed biological or chemical weapons is as
striking. Iran is one of the few states in
the modern period to be a target of
chemical warfare. Yet it did not
retaliate in kind, despite gross provocation, and it has never manufactured,
deployed or used either biological or chemical weapons. This has been confirmed by several United
Nations fact-finding missions.
For the past few
days, we have seen a new campaign by Israel, repeated by U.S. administration
officials, alleging that Iran is developing long-range missiles with the help
of Russia, depicting this as a threat to Israel, and interestingly enough, our
Arab and Turkish neighbors. Obviously there is no truth to this new myth, and I
invite you to look at a not-so-friendly, but nevertheless revealing Article by
Tom Friedman in today’s New York Times. In fact the record will show that
security anxieties in the Middle East emanate
from Israeli militaristic policies and nuclear-weapon programs.
This brings me
to the larger picture of Middle East peace, the last of the three “U.S. broad
areas of concern”. Iran’s analysis and position is that a solution
to the Middle East problem requires a
democratic approach based on respect for the rights of all concerned. The current peace effort neglects the rights
of the Palestinian people, including their inalienable right to
self-determination. Its problems are inherent in the formula that it advocates,
and Iran
has taken no action whatsoever to disrupt it.
I
believe these facts are not unknown to American officials. I also presume that the ulterior motives of
those making these rather general and in fact irresponsible allegations against
my country are quite evident. It is even
more interesting to note that the ferocity of the anti-Iran campaign has
multiplied in the last several weeks, exactly at the time when observers
expected that following Iranian elections a more realistic policy from the United States would
be forthcoming. The fact that these allegations are nevertheless being made and
repeated, including most recently by Secretary Albright here in New York, is an indication of the absence of the
necessary political will to address Iran responsibly and with realism.
In my view this
is the major problem. Of course, we also have many complaints, which in my
view are real and based on objective facts, rather than general allegations. Our objection relates to policies and
behavior of the United States,
in four broad areas: interference in the internal and external affairs of
others, including Iran;
obstruction of initiatives for security and cooperation in our region; breach
of legal obligations including those vis-a-vis Iran;
and U.S.
support for terrorism. More specifically,
failure to comply with binding U.S. bi-lateral and multi-lateral
obligations towards Iran exemplified most vividly by D’amato Law and allocation
of $20 million last year by U.S. Congress for subversive activities against
Iran, pouring massive quantities of sophisticated military equipment into the
Persian Gulf area, interference in the internal affairs of Islamic States,
disregard for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, support for
state terrorism perpetrated by Israel, and cooperation and provision of safe
heaven to acknowledged anti-Iranian terrorist groups constitute major
objectionable policies of the United States for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
You may have
heard followed the recent developments following the presidential election in Iran,
interestingly enough, both sides have said that the ball is in the court of the
other side to take the first step. But, I would like to suggest that the
problem between our two countries is more complex than who takes the first
step. It is one that has roots in a bitter past; but one which can change in
the context of respect for international law, and recognition of the legitimate
mutual interests and concerns.