West Asia’s missing peace
By following the developments in West Asia (the Middle East) and more so living in them, one can’t help but feel that peace is elusive in the region. The prescriptions can almost never be neatly applied here, and forcing peace always ends up a disaster. Far from being a monologue before throwing the metaphorical towel, this is a reminder that to achieve peace, those who wish it — which is obviously not everyone — have to work harder, together. This is exactly why in this critical regional juncture, the Foundation of Dialogue and Solidarity of the United Nations (FODASUN) organized its sixth annual international conference on the topic of the future of peace and human rights in West Asia, featuring distinguished speakers from various domestic and international backgrounds. FODASUN is a non-governmental organization based in Iran, dedicated to promoting regional and international peace, fostering tolerance, encouraging dialogue, and advocating for the protection of human rights. The following are excerpts of the speeches made during the November 13 event.
By Amir Mollaee Mozaffari
Staff writer
US-led peace process ‘aggravated’ situation
Tamaki Tsukada
Ambassador of Japan in Tehran
Currently, conflict is raging in the Middle East, and the prospect of permanent peace or sustainable development is very opaque, to say the least. However, I guess, it is the job of diplomats and diplomacy, for that matter, to work on the impossible and the imponderable.
The deteriorating situation between Israel and Palestine and the absence of the security architecture in the Middle East seem to be the two key fundamental factors to the region’s instability.
On the former question of the bilateral relationship between Israel and Palestine, there have been many attempts, but all have failed. The US-led peace process, which foregoes the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in favor of pursuing a partial economic and security integration in the region (the so-called Abraham Accords), has arguably aggravated the situation further.
On the question of the lack of a standing regional security architecture, existing organizations such as the GCC or the Arab League are exclusive by nature. For example, the GCC is purely a sub-regional organization that excludes Iran and Iraq, while the Arab League excludes non-Arab states by definition.
So, if these two issues (the bilateral relationship and the lack of a reasonable arrangement) remain unaddressed, the Middle East, in mind, will likely see insecurity reach new levels. Japan, on its part, will continue to contribute to easing the regional tensions and stabilizing the situation through diplomatic efforts, on the back of our traditional relations with all countries in the region and parties and on the strength of its fundamental security alliance with the United States, which gives Japan a special leverage to influence the United States.
Finally, this is not my government’s position, but I would like to throw a small idea, a food for thought. I think that there is a need, or at least a need for a process, to develop a cooperative, inclusive regional security architecture for all states in the Middle East. The principles guiding the Middle East order should be the centrality of the states, non-interference in the internal affairs of others, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and, most importantly, regional ownership.
In other words, the responsibility of maintaining regional security should fall on the shoulders of the countries in the region, rather than on the external powers. However, for resolving an existing regional conflict, I think there is value in bringing an external, faithful, and neutral third party to serve as a mediator to provide a platform to bring the conflicting parties together and ultimately lead to a solution for peace. But it would be unconstructive if external audiences intervened in the design or the maintenance of peace. The ultimate responsibility will reside in the region, and it should have ownership of whatever architecture or structure that was built there.
Rules-based order ‘intends’ to add ‘confusion’
Alena Douhan
UN Special Rapporteur
As a Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, I presented a number of reports addressing various elements. I have to admit that unfortunately, unilateral coercive measures have a very serious detrimental impact on the peace, security, and stability in different parts of the world. Overall, it’s necessary to say that unilateral sanctions affect the stabilities in the subjected countries and due to the spillover effect, they affect the whole region. I will give you a few examples.
First of all, in the majority of countries, as soon as unilateral sanctions are enforced, the situation becomes less stable. Quite often, a higher level of inflation is observed, the level of poverty grows, and people lose access to basic needs, including specific types of medicine, and have to move to neighboring countries. They move to neighboring countries because of not being able to cover the different expenses at home or to get access to necessary medicine, education, or treatment, thereby creating instability in the region. This, in turn, poses a threat to international peace and security.
A very important challenge posed by unilateral sanctions revolves around refugees. Here, we could observe several examples. In particular, Iran is hosting a huge number of Afghan refugees. For a long time, Iran has also been the subject of both international and unilateral sanctions, and we must take into account the economic situation in Iran. Due to unilateral sanctions, Iran is left alone to handle the situation with refugees. Many people are moving away from a country because of being desperate. So, they often do not have any place to go and do not have any money on them.
Another sphere, which is included in the global fight against international terrorism as well as other international crimes, concerns the adherence to the rule of law. As I repeatedly reflected, the unilateral sanctions are fully illegal, and as a result, they do not adhere to the rule of law. There is currently a tendency to supplement the rule of law with the so-called rules-based order, which is basically other rules that are intended to be imposed by those countries that impose sanctions that have nothing to do with international law in reality. At the same time, due to the use of very similar words, it intends to provide additional confusion in the international area, especially in the sphere of international law.
Another very important challenge undermining international peace and security is the effect of unilateral sanctions on international collaboration. In order to be able to attain international peace and security, states shall work together. They shall look for ways to settle their disputes peacefully. Unfortunately, the tendency to impose unilateral sanctions tries to put one state above another state, saying, “This is how you should act or we will punish you.” That violates the principle of equality of states and the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states, and it doesn’t find solutions to the disputes. It, vice versa, makes relations between countries much worse.
Secondly, when it comes to cooperation, a number of other international treaties have been violated. A very clear example is the Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States of America, which has been recently withdrawn by the US. Many multilateral treaties cannot be implemented due to unilateral sanctions. From the point of international law, states cannot withdraw from a treaty at any time. Every treaty sets forth a procedure for withdrawal. International law is based on the principles of sustainability and predictability of international relations. At the minimum, one state shall inform all other states about its willingness to withdraw 12 months in advance, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Peace cannot be achieved through domination
Ebrahim Motaghi
Dean of Law, Political Science at University of Tehran
Even though the ideal peace is a rare commodity in the Middle East, the reality is that more than any other region in the post-World War II era, the Middle East has been subject to crises and wars between social groups, states, and international actors. This posed a question to my mind: How could the Middle East of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (the pre-WW2 era) have been relatively at peace? To which I could only answer that it was partly because Israel had not existed yet.
Israel and its establishment laid the groundwork for a rise in security conflicts in the region. The wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 as well as many more post-Soviet Union wars attest to that. When Israel, a proxy actor, gained too much military power and support, the United States failed to lay the necessary groundwork for peace in the region.
In the Middle East, peace is fragile and unstable. Some theorists pursue peace through international rights and law, while others pursue it through international institutions. However, in a situation where Israel disregards UNSC resolutions such as resolution 248, it is only normal that peace cannot be made through international institutions. The third approach is peace-building through the US. Washington prescribes domination before making peace. The fourth approach is building peace through a balance of power, but in a region that has been dominated by Western powers for more than 500 years, it cannot be done. Iran’s approach, by the way, is peace-building through resistance.
So, why are we where we are today? Because, for one thing, the prevailing approach to peace is the one that says, “Peace is achieved once you establish dominance,” and, for another thing, technology is changing the game constantly.
To those who consider Iran to be the destabilizing actor, I quote the political analyst Graham Fuller, who said the balanced power structure of the Middle East inevitably triggers new crises even if Iran had not existed. Every few years a new country wants to be the hegemon in the region. It’s a war of everyone against everyone. Distrust breeds a vacuum of power, and in every vacuum, external powers look to intervene.
UN been reduced, at best, to ambulance
Christophe Peschoux
Former chief of Special Procedures at OHCHR
I’m not speaking on behalf of the UN. I’m a lawyer but I say these as a human rights activist. So, don’t expect diplomatic talk or niceties from me today as I intend to be honest.
One thing I learned when I worked in Cambodia, which is applicable everywhere, is that states respect human rights to the extent that they coincide with their interests. Thus, the use of double, multiple standards. And what is the consequence if a state fails to fulfill its responsibility? If it is powerful, there would be no consequences. Impunity prevails. If it is weak, it may be subject to pressure, interferences, sanctions, and military constraints.
Two conflicts today lay bare the impotence of the United Nations: the war in Ukraine, and the genocide in Gaza. They have paralyzed the Security Council. As an international actor, the UN is now at a standstill. Besides its role to distill the ideology of the globalist doxa, the UN has been reduced, at best, to the role of an ambulance, a humanitarian agency sent to the battlefields set alight by states, to pick up the pieces of what can still be saved. At worst, to a powerless spectator, wriggling its hands, and pronouncing more or less empty incantations, invoking state obligations, international law, human rights, and humanitarian principles.
In 1991, the US had promised to president Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, NATO did not cease to close to the border of Russia, provoking it, and forcing it to either accept the threat of its military presence at its doorstep or to intervene militarily to stop that process. Russia repeatedly called for negotiations and exhausted diplomatic avenues in December 2021. The US ignored its requests. It refused to recognize its security interests and to enter a negotiation. In February, as the Ukrainian army was building up along its eastern border, Russia took the military initiative. Two months later, the war could have ended. A settlement was being negotiated in Turkey. But in April, Boris Johnson, on behalf of the West, went to Kyiv and dissuaded Zelinsky from negotiating.
Russia, China, and other states that formed or joined the BRICS have observed attentively these developments with concern. They have understood that not only they are not welcomed in the “Western club,” but that the so-called values that the West vocally professes are mere pretexts for pressuring them and advancing their interests.
Even more than the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza has illustrated the Security Council’s inability not only to ensure peace, which is its primary function, but even just a minimal protection of the civilian population.
In Gaza, Israel not only engaged in a deliberate policy of genocide but declared war on everyone trying to oppose or moderate it. Anyone observing that conflict for decades knows that Israel does not respect international law, human rights law, international humanitarian law, or the United Nations. It has ignored GA resolutions, Security Council resolutions, Human Rights Council resolutions, and International Court of Justice decisions. It only respects force and the only force that may curb and reign in its power hubris is the US, which supports it virtually unconditionally. It despises the United Nations which it has qualified as a “swamp of antisemitism”.
How far Israel can go in ignominy? There seems to be no moral nor political limit to its actions. We knew that power corrupts morality, that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that without checks and balances, power goes mad. Any other country in the world that would openly commit these blatant atrocities, for all to see, for more than a year, and boast of doing so in the name of its right to defend itself, and in the name of the good and civilization, would be sanctioned. And rightly so. There can be no place among civilized people for such behavior: it is the very opposite of civilization.
Path taken to make genocide tolerable
Zohreh Kharazmi
Scholar
A look at many Hebrew children’s books that have been published in Israel shows plainly how they intend to distort history and make being part of a genocide tolerable for the next generation of Israelis. For example, in these books, it’s common to come across fables where you can make a clear connection between the thoughtful humans in the story and Israelis as well as between animals or Bedouins in the story and Palestinians. One story went even as far as to suggest that humans (Israelis) even brought their own stones to build new settlements but were nevertheless met with hostilities, implying that at that point, it’s okay to feel frustrated and resort to violence.
All these dehumanizing techniques are arguably necessary for two reasons. Firstly, you have to dehumanize your enemy and victimize your group to make resolute soldiers out of your children. Secondly, your children are bound to one day doubt the morality of their regime’s actions (or face criticism from outside), and they have to know that the “animals” they are supposedly fighting are not worth defending.
Another similar common technique revolves around stripping Palestinians of their personhood. This is achieved mainly to make everyone, including Palestinians themselves, believe that Palestinians are to blame for anything that happens to them. This technique has been so effective that I’ve been asked a lot, “Why did Hamas make that attack on October 7, 2023?” These questions could have easily been answered by the enquirers themselves if only they had known or considered every crime and injustice that Palestinians had been through prior to that point.