Canadian resolution vote signals waning compliance with Western lobbying at international bodies
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
Canada’s annual human rights resolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran was adopted at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday evening local time. The resolution passed with 78 votes in favor, 27 against and 64 abstentions, while 24 countries were absent from the vote. The number of votes in favor was lower than the combined total of opposing and abstaining votes and also declined compared with last year, when the resolution received 80 affirmative votes.
Iran has voiced its firm opposition to the resolution, describing the move as entirely politically motivated, selective and destructive. Questions remain, however, as to why Canada pursues this initiative every year and why it focuses so specifically on Iran’s human rights record among so many countries.
In an interview with Iran Daily, international affairs expert Mohsen Farkhani examined the dimensions of the issue. Farkhani said Canada’s move was not an independent action but part of broader Western pressure. He added that the relatively low and declining number of votes in favor pointed to a weakening of the effectiveness of Western alliances against Iran within international organizations.
IRAN DAILY: What message does the decline in affirmative votes compared with last year convey?
FARKHANI: Within the division of labor among US Western allies aimed at exerting pressure from multiple angles on the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation, Canada’s activism in pursuing pressure and human rights resolutions serves as a complementary piece of Washington’s maximum pressure puzzle.
Despite the marginal nature of the decline in votes condemning Iran on human rights grounds, this reduction reflects a growing awareness among many countries of the dual use of international organizations as instruments designed to serve and safeguard Western interests. This perception has been reinforced over the past two years, during which, despite Israel’s human rights violations, the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council and international courts have failed to act effectively or hold Israel and its main backer, the United States, accountable.
Accordingly, the decline in support can be interpreted as diminished acceptance of the Western narrative on human rights norms. This shift among countries in pushing back against Western interpretations, and in reassessing how states engage with international organizations vis-à-vis Western-backed votes, represents another blow to confidence in liberal institutionalism.
Page 8