Ashraf AboArafe
“Aldiplomasy” highlights a statement by H.E. Dr. M. Javad Zarif, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the United Nations Security Council as follows:
* “Non-Proliferation: implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)”
30 June 2020
بسم میحرلا نمحرلا هللا
Mr. President,
I wish to begin my statement with words Prime Minister Mosaddegh used in this
Council 59 years ago.
“The Security Council was established so that large and small nations alike might sit around the same table and cooperate for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The Council cannot perform its great task …
unless big powers respect the principles which it was created to embody.”
Two years later, he was overthrown in a CIA coup.
Mr. President,
If this Council falters again, it will be a generational setback for the cause of multilateralism and the rule of law.
We have all in past years seen how malign U.S. unilateralism has intently assaulted international cooperation and international institutions. Through its parallel endeavor to supplant international law with U.S. domestic laws, this has directly undermined global
peace and security.
Regrettably, complacency has enabled and encouraged this recklessness. Indeed, complacency is a root cause for why we are gathered here today.
Iran and other members of the international community have, since the 8th of May 2018, been witnessing the U.S. Government—a co-sponsor of Security Council Resolution 2231—persistently flouting the Resolution, while also trying to force other States to join it
in violating the very text it put forward itself. More dangerously, and for the first time in UN history, a permanent member of the Security Council is punishing law-abiding Statesa and private citizens for not violating a Council resolution, which emphasized, and I quote,“ promoting and facilitating the development of normal economic and trade contacts andc cooperationwith Iran.”1
And yet, not a single Council session has been convened to reprove the U.S. Government, or to at least investigate its repeated violations. Instead, some European members of the Council are contemplating further undermining the Resolution and the Council while further reneging on their own JCPOA commitments.
To cover this up, the U.S. has—with some of its enablers—pressured the Secretariat
to adopt a perverse reading of Resolution 2231—rejected by 3 JCPOA Participants,
2 which is the polar opposite of the clear affirmation by the Security Council “that conclusion of the JCPOA marks a fundamental shift in its consideration of this issue…”3
The U.S.—along with its accomplices in war crimes in Yemen—have gone further in their now-infamous 4 campaign of intimidation against international institutions. Most recently, they coerced the Secretariat to rely on self-serving allegations and forged documents to produce an utterly unprofessional report outside the scope of its mandate under UNSCR 2231.5 Not surprisingly, the Secretariat simultaneously absolved the Saudi coalition of its well-documented child-killing in Yemen. This status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
1
Preambular Paragraph 13 of UNSCR 2231 (2015).
2
This flawed interpretation of JCPOA and the unacceptable approach by the Secretariat over the past 4 years
has been repeatedly rejected by at least three members of the JCPOA Joint Commission, namely, China, Iran
and Russian Federation.
3
Preambular Paragraph 7 of UNSCR 2231 (2015).
4
The Whitehouse, “Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court”, 11 June 2020. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-associated-international-criminal-court/
5
The Islamic Republic of Iran has already categorically rejected allegations contained in that report
(S/2020/531). From a legal point of view, such types of investigation can only meet the established norms of international law when they are characterized by lawfulness, fairness and diligence. The evidence—indeed allegations—the Secretariat relied upon do not meet the criteria set by established norms of international law. According to the ICJ, a charge of such exceptional gravity against a State requires “a proper degree
of certainty” and the standard, which should leave no room for reasonable doubt. (Corfu Channel: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 17.) and must be proven by fully conclusive evidence. (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para. 208.) Such are totally absent in the uncorroborated self-serving allegations by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
The international community in general—and the UN Security Council in particular—are facing an important decision: Do we maintain respect for the rule of law, or do we return to the law of the jungle by surrendering to the whims of an outlaw bully?
Mr. President,
In spite of our strong and legitimate objections to the historic mistreatment of Iran by the Security Council—particularly throughout 8 years of aggression by Saddam Hussein, as well as in the course of the unnecessary nuclear crisis—Iran showed its good faith by engaging in negotiations to reach a diplomatic solution as called for by all Security Council Resolutions on the nuclear issue6.
. After thirteen years of complex negotiations, in 2015 Iran and the five permanent members of this Council plus Germany signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is annexed to—and inseparable from—Resolution 2231. Iran clearly stated its positions immediately after the adoption of the Resolution7 and again more recently.8
Yet, it fulfilled all its commitments in good faith, verified by numerous IAEA reports.
In spite of this great achievement of multilateral diplomacy, the president of the United States in May 2018 announced his country’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the unlawful re-imposition of all U.S. sanctions, in material breach of Resolution 2231.
Prior to that, the U.S. had persistently committed multiple cases of “significant non-performance” of its JCPOA obligations. It is important to note that even the previous U.S.
Administration made every effort to minimize the positive impact of its sanction lifting obligations under the JCPOA and Resolution 2231.
This has all been documented in my numerous letters to the JCPOA Joint
Commission Coordinator and the UN Secretary-General9, all of which, unfortunately, have been ignored by the European JCPOA Participants.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, the UN Secretary General10, the
remaining JCPOA participants11 and many other members of the international community called on Iran to address its concerns through the mechanisms established in the JCPOA and to allow the remaining JCPOA participants to redress the unlawful withdrawal.
The European JCPOA Participants requested Iran to wait for only a few weeks to allow them to compensate for the losses Iran incurred as a result of re-imposed U.S. sanctions.
While expressly reserving Iran’s immediate right12 under Paragraph 26,13 I initiated
the Dispute Resolution Mechanism under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA on 10 May 201814.
However, acting in good faith, we refrained from applying the ‘remedy’ in order to enable
the remaining JCPOA participants to make good on their promises. For a full year, we continued full implementation of the JCPOA. I trust you are all aware of the 15 consecutive IAEA reports which verified Iran’s full compliance with its JCPOA commitments.15
Unfortunately, the E3 response to our “strategic patience” was not a long overdue assertion of European “strategic autonomy”. Rather it was over-compliance with the U.S.’
“maximum pressure” targeting all Iranians.
On 6 November 2018, I made a final call on the Coordinator and the remaining
JCPOA Participants under paragraph 36 of the JCPOA. “The United States has now re-11 “Remarks by High Representative/Vice President Federica Mogherini on the Statement by U.S. President.
Trump Regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)”, Rome, 8 May 2018.
12 In my letter of 10 May 2018 to the Coordinator of the JCPOA Joint Commission, I stated “It is Iran’s unquestionable right—recognized also under the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231—to take appropriate action in response to persistent numerous unlawful acts by the U.S., particularly its withdrawal and re-imposition of all sanctions. However, as President Rouhani announced in his televised response on 8 May and further
elaborated in the Statement of the Government on 10 May 2018, the Islamic Republic of Iran will decide its next step in the course of few weeks following consultations with the remaining JCPOA Participants to see if and how the commitments collectively undertaken by EU/E3+3 vis-a-vis Iran could be fulfilled in the absence of a reneging party by EU/E3+2. Nothing in this period would affect Iran’ right to react and protect its
national interest as appropriate, a right which is manifestly recognized in the JCPOA and the UNSC resolution 2231(2015).”
13 Paragraph 26 of the JCPOA: “Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under thisc calledon Iran to address its concerns through the mechanisms established in the JCPOAa andto allow the remaining JCPOA participants to redress the unlawful withdrawal.
The European JCPOA Participants requested Iran to wait for only a few weeks to
allow them to compensate for the losses Iran incurred as a result of re-imposed U.S.sanctions.
While expressly reserving Iran’s immediate right12 under Paragraph 26,13 I initiated the Dispute Resolution Mechanism under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA on 10 May 201814.
.
However, acting in good faith, we refrained from applying the ‘remedy’ in order to enable the remaining JCPOA participants to make good on their promises. For a full year, we continued full implementation of the JCPOA. I trust you are all aware of the 15 consecutive IAEA reports which verified Iran’s full compliance with its JCPOA commitments.15
Unfortunately, the E3 response to our “strategic patience” was not a long overdue assertion of European “strategic autonomy”. Rather it was over-compliance with the U.S.’ “maximum pressure” targeting all Iranians.
On 6 November 2018, I made a final call on the Coordinator and the remaining
JCPOA Participants under paragraph 36 of the JCPOA. “The United States has now reimposed with full effect all sanctions specified in the JCPOA and its Annex II, and as elaborated above, no remedial measure has been implemented by the remaining JCPOA Participants. Most have effectively joined the restrictive measures against Iran…Either
EU/E3+2—who have repeatedly underlined the security and strategic ramifications of JCPOA—should ensure Iran’s legitimate benefits by fulfilling their commitments made in their statements of 6 July and 24 September 201816 in real and practical terms without further delay, or Iran will have no option but to restore a semblance of balance –as ‘the remedy that the participants contemplated if the dispute mechanism did not resolve the issue’… In view of the above, I formally call for the convening of another ministerial meeting of the Joint Commission.”17
No meeting was convened and none of the European JCPOA Participants even
bothered to write a rebuttal for another 6 months. Having repeatedly exhausted the
Dispute Resolution Mechanism to absolutely no avail, my Government was left with no recourse but to exercise its rights under Paragraphs 26 and 36 of the JCPOA to apply remedial action and cease performing its commitments in part on 8 May 2019.
In spite of all this, our remedial measures have until now had no impact on the
IAEA’s monitoring and verification of our peaceful nuclear program, thereby making any proliferation risks irrelevant. Indeed, Iran’s peaceful nuclear program remains subject to the “most robust” inspection regime in history. From 2016 through 2019, over 92 percent of the Agency’s total comparable global inspections were carried out in Iran.18
Even the recent controversial report by the Director General of the IAEA on 5 June 2020 states that “The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used (LOFs) declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement”19
.
Having said that, the Agency must resist external pressures to manipulate its
agenda. The litany of forged documents at its doorstep have a stated objective of forever killing the JCPOA, thereby ending the Agency’s robust monitoring of current activities in Iran. Resuscitating 17-year-old allegations with no proliferation risk—which were investigated and permanently closed by the IAEA Board of Governors in 201520—will certainly not serve the Agency.
Mr. President,
Matters which are extraneous to the JCPOA by mutual agreement—such as Iran’s defensive capabilities and regional policies—are being maliciously raised by the U.S. Administration and parroted by a handful of its allies and clients.21
Here, it must be underlined that the bargain made in the JCPOA was in total
cognizance of our disagreement with the Western members of the P5+1 over certain issues. Do not be deceived: we mutually agreed not to address these issues; most importantly because the United States was not prepared to—or probably even capable of—addressing our grave concerns over its unfathomable level of arms sales and build-up
in our neighborhood22, as well as its malign behavior and constant interventions, which have left our region in ruins.
The United States has carried out numerous acts of armed aggression against Iran23 and its neighbors; invaded our neighbors 3 times in the last 3 decades24; milked the region of its resources through destabilizing arms sales25; systematically supported terrorists26; and provided material support for crimes against humanity in Yemen27. The peoples of our regionhave had enough of the malign U.S. presence, and demand its termination.28 Theb bitterirony here is that most Americans also want their troops returned home, where they elong.
This very regime absurdly accuses Iran of “meddling” in its own region. Yes. Of
course. We want to partner with all our neighbors to create a strong region that precludes the emergence of hegemonic aspirations, by any power—regional or global. A strong region that requires homegrown political and territorial stability. And a strong region for which all neighbors need to exercise strategic self-restraint. It was to this end that, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran put forward the Hormuz Peace Endeavor—HOPE.
And we can do it. Without U.S. meddling some 6000 miles away from its shores.
Mr. President, The International Court of Justice clearly underlined in its 1971 advisory opinion on Namibia, and I quote, “One of the fundamental principles governing international relationship thus established is that a party which disowns or does not fulfil its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship.”29
After officially and explicitly ceasing its participation in the JCPOA at the highest
level30, and having violated each and every one of its obligations under the JCPOA and standard of living35. The United States must fully compensate the Iranian people for all damages it has inflicted upon them—appallingly, for no reason other than to satisfy domestic constituencies and personal aggrandizement.
While the Islamic Republic of Iran has shown—in words and deeds—our desire and preference for constructive engagement, we do not depend on others for our security, stability or prosperity. We have learned to solely depend on ourselves. That is why more than 40 years of U.S. pressure—whether through demonization or war, sanctions or terror—including the cowardly assassination of our region’s counter-terrorism hero, General Qassem Soleimani—has failed to “bring Iranians to their knees” or affect our people’s decision-making calculus.
For my final words, let me again borrow from Prime Minister Mossadegh’s speech
before the Security Council in 1951: “The Council will not have failed to note the cogency of our arguments to the law. Yet, this is not a legal body, but primarily a political body charged with the highest political responsibilities. It will readily understand therefore, that we will not.
