Statement
Statement summary
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, President of Iran, recalled that, in previous years, he had addressed the Assembly about the current challenges, solutions and prospects of the future world. Today, he said, he wished to discuss issues from a different perspective. He asked Member States to imagine, for a moment, if in human and recent history there had been no egoism, distrust, malicious behaviours and no one violating the rights of others; if humanitarian values had been viewed as the criterion for social dignity in place of affluence and consumerism; if the Crusades, slavery and colonialism had not happened; and if the wars of Palestine that followed had not taken place; if Saddam Hussein had not invaded Iran and the world’s large powers not sided with him; if the tragic incident of September 11 and the military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq not occurred.
He further asked them to imagine if the world’s “arms [had] been turned into pens”, and if the right to criticize the hegemonic policies and actions of the world Zionist regime had been recognized; if the Security Council had not been under the domination of a limited number of Governments, thus disabling the United Nations from carrying out its responsibilities in a just and equitable basis; “imagine how beautiful and pleasant our lives and how lovely the history of mankind would have been”.
Drawing attention to the current global economic situation, he said that poverty was on the rise and the gap was widening between the rich and poor. The total foreign debt of 18 industrialized countries now exceeded $60 trillion, and economies dependent on consumerism and the exploitation of people only served the interests of a limited number of countries. Concepts such as moral principles, purity, honesty, integrity, compassion and self-sacrifice were rejected as defunct and outdated notions, and “pure” and indigenous cultures were under constant attack, and susceptible to extinction. A lifestyle devoid of individual or social identity was being imposed by nations, he said; moreover, the “human soul has become frustrated, and the essence of humankind humiliated and suppressed”.
Unilateralism, the application of double standards and the imposition of wars, instability and occupations were now “the order of the day”, he continued. An arms race and intimidation by nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction by the hegemonic powers had become prevalent. Testing new generations of ultra-modern weaponry, and the pledge to disclose those armaments in due time, were now being used as a new language of threat against nations, to coerce them into accepting a new era of hegemony. The continued threat by the “uncivilized” Zionists to resort to military action against Iran was a “clear example of this bitter reality”. No one felt safe. Further, the earth’s environment had been seriously damaged or devastated by capitalists around the world. In that context, he asked, “does anybody believe that continuation of the current order is capable of bringing happiness for human society?”
Some tried to justify that “everything is normal” and a reflection of divine will, putting the blame on nations as responsible for all prevalent vices and ills, he said. However, those were arguments aimed at justifying the attitudes and destructive behaviours of the ruling minority. “Poverty is imposed on nations, and Powers’ ambitions and goals are pursued either through deceits or resort to force”. Masses of people never wanted to expand their territories, nor did they seek to obtain legendary wealth. Peoples — including Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others — had no disputes among themselves, in principle. Instead, the current “abysmal situation of the world” and the bitter incidents of history were due mainly to the poor management of the world and the self-proclaimed centres of power who had entrusted themselves to the Devil. The world today was founded on materialism, and had been shaped according to selfishness, deception, hatred and animosity. It believed in the classification of human beings and in the humiliation of others nations, and aimed to monopolize power, wealth, science and technology.
Asking, in that context, what should be done, he answered that “there is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking”. An order was needed in which man was recognized as God’s Supreme Creature, enjoying material and spiritual qualities and possessing a pure and divine nature filled with a desire to seek justice and truth. Together, the world needed to place its trust in God and stand against the “acquisitive minority” with all its might.
“It is necessary to note that the United Nations belongs to all nations,” he said, stressing the current structures of the United Nations must be reformed, and that the present existence of discrimination and monopoly in the Organization was in no way acceptable. Participation in global management was the basis of lasting peace. The more than 120 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, holding their sixteenth session recently in Tehran under the motto “Joint Global Management”, had underscored the necessity of a more serious and effective participation of all nations in the global management.
“The Non-Aligned Movement is proud to once again emphasize the rightfulness of its historic decision to reject the poles of power and the unbridled hegemony ruling the world”, he said. The need to remove the structural barriers and encourage universal partnership in global management had never been greater. If the United Nations was not restructured, international interactions and the spirit of collective cooperation would be tarnished, and the standing of the Organization damaged. It had been created to expand justice but in practice had been engulfed in discussion and domination by a few countries. Finally, he emphasized, the arrival of the Ultimate Saviour would mark a new beginning, a rebirth and a resurrection; it would be the beginning of peace, lasting security and a genuine life. He would bless humanity with a saying that would put an end to “our winter of ignorance, poverty and war” with the tidings of a season of blooming. “Long live this spring, long live this spring and long live this spring,” he concluded.
Full statement
Read the full statement, in PDF format.
Photo
Previous sessions
Access the statements from previous sessions.
Right of reply
First Right of Reply (26 September 2012)
The representative of Iran, in exercise of the right of reply, said that this morning, the Kuwaiti Prime Minister had referred in his statement to the three Iranian islands located in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian Government reiterated its full sovereignty over the Iranian islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb in the Persian Gulf and rejected categorically any claim to the contrary. The measures undertaken in those islands by the Iranian officials had been always conducted based on the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran.
Iran, he continued, had always pursued a policy of friendship and good-neighbourliness with all its neighbours. In that context, Iran stood ready to discuss the matter bilaterally with relevant officials in the United Arab Emirates, with a view to strengthen the relations in various fields and accordingly resolve any possible misunderstanding by the other party. The territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Iran over the islands was not negotiable.
Moreover, he said, in relation to the reference made in the statements of a few delegations, Iran wished to stress that the only correct historically and universally recognized name for the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula was “the Persian Gulf”. Therefore, any use of fabricated or incomplete names for that body of water was totally groundless, absolutely unacceptable and of no legal, geographical or political value.
Source: GA/11294
Second Right of Reply (27 September 2012)
The representative of Iran, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said he was replying to “a series of baseless allegations against my country” by the Prime Minister of the “notorious Israeli regime”. Iran categorically rejected those allegations, in particular those relating to its nuclear programme, “which is exclusively peaceful and in full conformity with our international obligations and in exercising our inalienable right to use nuclear science and technology for peaceful purposes”.
As a country with no record of aggression in its centuries-long history, Iran was a party to all major international instruments banning the production and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, he said, citing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxic Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention). It was fully committed to all relevant legal obligations under those treaties, and was proud to have proposed a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
He said the Israeli regime had a record of ruthlessly killing innocent women and children, as well as committing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity over more than six decades. Its 33-day war against Lebanon, its barbaric 22-day attack on Gaza and its inhumane blockade of the Gaza Strip were only some recent examples of such atrocities. “Not only is the Israeli regime the only non-party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, but also, despite repeated calls by the international community, it has never declared its intention to do so,” he noted. Including the United States and other main supporters of the Zionist regime, 189 States parties to the NPT had unanimously called upon that regime to accede to the Treaty without conditions, he said. Noting that officials of the Israeli regime had threatened Iran and other countries in the region with military attack, he declared: “ Iran is strong enough to defend itself and reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against any attack.”
Source: GA/11295
Third Right of Reply (28 September 2012)
First Declaration:
The representative of Iran said the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb were an integral part of his country’s territory and rejected any claim to them. Measures taken on those islands were based on Iran’s sovereign rights and territorial integrity, he added. Stressing the importance of good-neighbourly relations between his country and its Persian Gulf neighbours, he said negotiations between Iran and the United Arab Emirates would expand their relations in various fields and help remove misunderstandings relating to the documents exchanged in 1971 on the territorial issue. He went on to emphasize that the “Persian Gulf” was the only historically correct name for the waterway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, and any fabricated name, including that used by the United Arab Emirates, was unacceptable, with no legal or political value.
Second Declaration:
The representative of Iran responded by saying that the islands had been part of Iranian territory throughout history. The Government of Iran stood ready to discuss the issue bilaterally so as to remove any misunderstandings that might arise over 1971 Treaty, he added.
Source: GA/11296
Fourth Right of Reply (1 October 2012)
The representative of Iran, also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that a Western delegation speaking today had been among several speakers making negative statements about his country’s nuclear programme throughout the debate. Like other NPT States parties, Iran had an inalienable right to research and produce useful energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, he emphasized, adding that his country’s commitment to non-proliferation remained intact. Indeed, Iran cooperated with IAEA, and all its nuclear plants, were under 24-hour surveillance by that Agency, he said, pointing out that its latest report made clear that Iran’s activities were in line with its Safeguards Agreements.
What was also clear, he continued, was that Iran was facing politically motivated attacks by those States — many of them nuclear Powers or those under their “umbrella” — that were trying to cover up their own “abysmal records” in the area. Rather than making statements about Iran, those countries should be concerned by the deadly threat posed by the Zionist regime which possessed nuclear weapons, he said. Indeed, that regime was the only threat to international peace and security as it tried to “red-line” the nuclear activities of others while itself crossing all such lines. It must submit to IAEA regulations and comply fully with its international obligations, he said. While Iran stood ready to engage in serious negotiations, it would never compromise on its inalienable right to peaceful uses of science and technology.
Source: GA/11