Some Facts on the procedural, substantive and political flaws of the Canada’s counterproductive initiative in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly against the Islamic Republic of Iran
A. Procedural Flaws
Human Rights Council is the most competent and specialized UN organ responsible for consideration of human rights situations in all countries. The Council has three mechanisms to address the situation of human rights in any part of the world:
1. UPR: The newly established and practiced Universal Periodic Review (UPR) constitutes a breakthrough in the work of the United Nations intergovernmental human rights activities. The underlying rational for devising and implementation of the said mechanism was to ensure universality, objectivity, non-selectivity and impartiality as unanimously recommended and reiterated by the international community. In a logical setting, the unhindered and smooth functioning of the above-mentioned mechanism, enables the human rights machinery to act with impartiality, prudence and consistency, defying attempts of political manipulation of those seeking to abuse it for ulterior ends when monitoring the human rights situations in any given country. UPR is a mechanism which allows the Human Rights Council to assess human rights situations at the global level and in a Comprehensive, cooperative and constructive manner.
2. Item 4 of the Human Rights Council’s agenda: The second mechanism to address human rights situations is item 4 of the agenda of the Human Rights Council entitled “human rights situations which require the Council’s attention”. The said item further enables the Council to address and examine properly the situation of human rights in any part of the world. The Council's special attention may also be drawn to those situations which manifest a gross violation of human rights and requires the appropriate decisions and actions of the Human Rights Council.
3. Special Sessions: The possibility for the Human Rights Council to hold special sessions is another mechanism to address the situations which manifestly exhibit gross violation of human rights on systematic basis and require the urgent attention of the Council.
Taking note of the abovementioned points, it should as a reasonable conclusion be underlined that the United Nations General Assembly is not a right place to deal with country situations. Thus selective presentation and adoption of country-specific human rights resolutions in the UNGA third committee and its continuation would not only conflict with the mandate and undermine and challenges the competence and authority of Human Rights Council, but also breaches the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing human rights issues and undermine cooperation as the essential principle to effectively promote and protect human rights, not mentioning overlapping and duplication of work of UN bodies, leading to inefficient if not total waste of scarce UN financial resources. 118 members of the Non Aligned Movement in their 15th Ministerial Conference unanimously emphasized the role of the Human Rights Council in consideration of human rights situations in the context of the Universal Periodic Review and expressed their deep concern over the practice of selective adoption of country specific resolutions in the General Assembly. United Nations must be the focal point of reliance, hope and participation for all peoples and governments to address global human rights challenges, and a forum for dialogue, understanding and cooperation to achieve its hefty goals of promotion and protection of human rights, peace and tranquility throughout the globe.
Another important point which is worth highlighting is that, since Canada's political initiative premises itself on some General Assembly's procedural ambiguities and is delivered with its complete failure to comply with UN rules and established practice, therefore invoking upon a procedural means to confront it was deemed most appropriate and as such a No-Action Motion is moved by the Islamic Republic of Iran based on rule 116 of rules of procedure of the General Assembly.
B: Substantive Facts
The resolution text which is drafted by Canada is in no way corresponding with the actual situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. An objective examination of the text indicates that it suffers from lack of credibility, reliability and objectivity in terms of substance. The content of resolution reflects anything but the truth. It contains flawed, inaccurate and over-exaggerated claims, and unfounded allegations and irrelevant and outdated accusations. Furthermore the Canadian resolution contains a number of falsified and unsubstantiated elements that contradict the realities of the human rights situation in Iran. Therefore it is essential in light of realities on the ground to take strong position against such an attempt and lend no credence to this catalogue of lies and fabrication manifesting themselves in what is purported as UNGA resolution.
C. Political Considerations
To the dismay of international community and by following such an approach, Canada seems to be determined to continue abusing the General Assembly's forum by pursuing its ulterior ends and illegitimate political interests. Supporting this draft or adopting an indifferent position on such an ill-intended practice will encourage the sponsor to carry on more vigorously its unwarranted, counterproductive and highly disputable exercise.
The five year old unconventional and counterproductive initiative of Canada at the GA has led to no tangible result but dividing the international community and injecting a confrontational approach amongst the participating member states attending the annual session of the General Assembly. Examination of the result of the votes and positions of different countries vis a vis the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the Third Committee as well as the plenary of the General Assembly is a hard proof to the latter observation and clearly indicates the rapid closure of the gap between the affirmative and negative votes. It is to be noted that the Canadian draft resolution was barely permitted to be considered at the Third Committee with 80 votes in favor and 79 against. The diminishing trend of the support for the Canada's political initiative at the General Assembly during the past three years reasonably suggest that such an initiative is doomed to failure.