In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Twenty-five years after Tehran, in a much more representative international community and one spared from the ills of the Cold War, the second World Conference on Human Rights provides a singular and unique opportunity to take stock of the achievements and failures of the past quarter century in this pivotal area of most vital importance to entire mankind. Let me take this opportunity, Mr. President, to thank the Government and people of Austria for hosting the Conference and their hospitality.

Having put behind the Cold War era, when all debates were governed by the rules of inter-bloc competition and rivalry and did not lend themselves to objective and genuine discourse on issues of such primary significance, the opportunity afforded by this global gathering of governments and non-governmental organizations should be fully utilized to address the fundamental issues pertaining to the full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. It should not be wasted through dealing with secondary and cosmetic issues.

Human rights are rooted in the nature of human beings and thus indivisible from the very existence of this masterpiece of creation. For this reason, the dignity, value and the exalted worth of human person are the centerpiece in the teachings of Divine religions. Rights in the Divine logic are not originated in conventions, rather they are bestowed upon human beings by their Creator. They are thus universal, independent of conditions, transcend all boundaries be they temporal or geographical, and do not lend themselves to distinctions of race, sex or other superficial attributes and barriers. Nor do they sacrifice the value of the individual for the well-being of the community, or the health of human society for license of individuals, as these rights emanate from the totality of human person.

The peak of such conception of man and his rights is to be found in the following Verses from the holy Quran:

And when thy Lord said to the angels, 'I am creating a mortal of a clay of mud moulded. When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him!' (XV:29-30)

And when thy Lord said to the angels, 'I am setting in the earth a viceroy.'They said, 'What, wilt Thou set therein one who will do corruption there, and shed blood, while we proclaim Thy praise and call Thee Holy?' He said, 'Assuredly I know that you know not.'(II:27)

We have honoured the Children of Adam and carried them on land and sea, and provided them with good things, and preferred them greatly over many of those we have created. (XVII:70)

And thus, the sanctity of this manifestation of God is not only beyond any reproach by any authority, but also inviolable by the man himself, since the killing of one man is tantamount to the murder of the entire humanity. Again according to the Holy Quran:

Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whose slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whose gives life to a soul, shall be as if he had given life to mankind altogether.(V:35)

It is in the same tradition, that equality is an extension of creation and not a product of definition or rationalistic deduction:

O mankind, We have created you male and female, and appointed you races and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely the noblest among you in the sight of God is the most virtuous of you. (XLIX:13)

This Divine world-view has left its indelible imprint even on the thinking and writings of pioneers of contemporary notions of human rights, clearly illustrating that human rights have their origins in religious teaching.

Moving from this theoretical foundation to the practical issues, problems and challenges facing us today, we can not but start from the premise that human rights represent the noblest aspirations of humanity in its totality. Divine in nature, they do not lend themselves to positivistic deductions. And certainly, they should not be considered the private domain of a single segment of international community in the codification, implementation, and international promotion and protection processes.

In this midst, it is absolutely shocking to hear in and around this unique Conference assertions that there would better be no outcome if the views of a group of powerful countries are not eventually to prevail. The Conference must have an outcome, it should be acceptable to all, and it must open the way for a new engagement of all countries and peoples of the world into a genuine discussion where there would be equal rights and opportunities for every one to participate and contribute to the universality and global realization of human rights.

The erroneous contention that a universal discourse on the concepts and standards of human rights harms their universality will only justify attempts to continue to disregard a great portion of humanity. Human rights are no doubt universal. They are inherent in human beings endowed in them by the sole Creator. As such, they can not be subject to cultural relativism. However, drawing from the richness and experience of all cultures, and particularly those based on Divine religions, which have throughout history provided the primary source and inspiration for definition, promotion and protection of human rights, would only logically serve to enrich human rights concepts, and enable them to address and satisfy all aspects of a human person, multi-dimensional as he is.

The fallacy that an opportunity for participation for all would lead to erosion, qualification or weakening of human rights norms and standards is rooted in a self-righteous position of a few who have already arrogated to themselves the right or the responsibility to set the model of behavior for the rest of humanity. The political predominance of one group of countries in international relations, which is temporary by nature and history, cannot provide a license for imposition of a set of guidelines and norms for the behavior of the entire international community, specially since the politically predominant states do not present an ideal, feasible or practical model, do not possess admirable pasts, nor do they observe a sincere or even consistent pattern of behavior vis-a-vis human rights and their international protection and promotion.

The sharp increase in violence and crime in these industrially advanced societies, which deprive the most vulnerable segments of society, including children, elderly and women, of their right to life as well as their dignity, the dangerous escalation of xenophobia and its manifestation in new and violent forms, the drug menace, rape and other abuses of women and children, prostitution and especially child prostitution, pornography, profanity, vulgarity and other social maladies so prevalent in these societies require a fresh look and reassessment. No wonder that an increasing number of individuals from these societies submerged into materialistic luxuries, seek refuge in oriental cultures to somehow find peace with themselves. It should indeed be a source of concern that morality and spirituality have been so absent that even the most bizarre claims to them easily attract devout followers into cults.

If this is the culture built upon and around human rights values, then by the reason of logic, something has to be wrong with the manner that these few politically and economically powerful states have conceived and interpreted the human being and his rights. It should be emphasized that a genuine discourse on these fundamental and basic concepts is by no means a license for violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. Rather, it is our conviction that a multi-dimensional approach to human rights, which emanates from a sound appreciation of the nature of human beings, coupled with the need to preserve the identity, health and safety of the social environment within which such rights are to be exercised, can provide a better background for the full realization of human rights.

Mr. President,

When human rights, which are essentially reflective of the highest aspirations of humanity, are considered by some as their own monopolized domain, they become tools rather than goals and objectives. However, the universality of human rights does not only require a truly universal theoretical base but also a universal method of application outside the control of a few. The abuse of the available international machinery for protection of human rights for short-sighted political expediencies connotes that human rights, rather than being universal aspirations, and instead of governing the conduct of domestic and foreign policy, have indeed become tools of foreign policy. The more regrettable fact, Mr. President, is that application of double-standards and the predominance of political considerations are no longer exceptions to the process, but in fact the rule of the game.

The tragic situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the genocide that is being so systematically perpetrated against the Muslim population of that country through the abhorrent policy of ethnic cleansing has been allowed to continue. The same dominant forces, which also monopolize the Security Council, have not only prevented concerted international action under Chapter VII of the Charter to combat aggression and genocide but also deprived the Government of bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise its most fundamental and inherent right, that is the right to self-defense.

The gross, systematic and massive violations of the inalienable right to self-determination as well as other fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people receives reactions ranging from indifference to complicity by those who maintain a high profile in international human rights fora vis-a-vis others.

We need to tackle this fundamental problem at its roots; that is the abuse of human rights for political gains. This conference can discharge its historic responsibility, if and only if it can mobilize the political will and establish the necessary mechanisms to minimize political manipulation of human rights and ensure that human rights and their protection and promotion are addressed on their merit and for their own sake. It is only then, that one can seriously and constructively consider ideas including the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights which under appropriate political conditions could prove vital for the strengthening of the international machinery for protection of human rights.

Such political considerations have also been applied to the categorization of rights; some accorded priority and predominance over others, notwithstanding the fact that indivisibility of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights has been so frequently emphasized and is solidly founded in theory and proven in contemporary life.

Moreover, there is no need to dwell on the self-evident interdependence between democracy and development. What is really at issue behind the smoke screen of propaganda, is that the right to development has been and is still being so grossly and systematically violated that it has given rise to a false dichotomy. Deliberate pursuit of self-serving economic-financial policies by the developed countries, given the existing unjust international setting, do not but further hamper the development process in the South. Failed development would in turn either frustrate attempts at democratization of societies or debilitate existing ones. The question, however, begs to be answered; if the developed countries are set to continue their current political and economic policies, which are no doubt motivated by what they perceive to their national interests, then, why do they need to dilute the debate on the right to development, and indeed, that of democracy and human rights?

Another related point which is very much diluted in human rights debates is the relationship between international protection of human rights and the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of others. Notwithstanding the prevalent propaganda, the real issue is not whether a serious, balanced, objective and non-selective international concern for human rights is legitimate. The point is when human rights and the international machinery for their protection become vehicles for the advancement of political considerations of a few, it becomes a totally different scenario; the one we are facing today. Such political acts of intervention are certainly against the well-founded and universally recognized principles of non-intervention and the imperative of respect for sovereignty. The argument that "human rights are legitimate international concern" cannot be applied to a process whose object is not in fact protection of human rights but rather furtherance of political goals.

Mr. President,

My delegation is convinced that, despite all the apparent difficulties, this Conference can succeed in setting a realistic and comprehensive agenda for international action for the genuine protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, if we face and address the issues and challenges before us with open mind, fair play and positive will.