16 February 2012
Explanation of vote after the vote
by the Islamic Republic of Iran on agenda item 34:
Prevention of armed conflict- The Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic
(16 Feb. 2012)
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the MercifulMr. President, My delegation has voted against the resolution just adopted as contained in document A/66/L.36 in line with our principled position that addressing the legitimate demands of the people through a peaceful and domestically-led political process and away from foreign interventions is the only way out of crisis. On the case of Syria, any attempt to interfere in the Syrian internal affairs would only lead to deepening of political and social crisis with all its ramifications to the region as a whole. Our goal, therefore, should be focused on a process that leads to strengthening national unity, ensuring public order, national security, stability and prosperity of Syrian people. While bearing in mind that the primary and ultimate responsibility for the safety, security and stability of the Syrian people lies with the people and government of Syria. We regret that the whole process of calling the meeting of the General Assembly to debate the situation in Syria did not go through the proper procedures. Further to the lack of consultation in convening the meeting even with the members of the General Committee, there is an inconsistency in the agenda item that the debate took place i.e. (That is to say) agenda item 64 “Report of Human Rights Council” and the agenda item that the resolution was adopted i.e. (that is to say) agenda item 34 “Prevention of Armed Conflict”. Discussing the situation of an armed conflict in a given country and the ways and means to prevent it has legal and political implications. We strongly believe that such a situation does not apply to the case of Syria. We suspect very much that attributing the situation of Syria under this category may not only help us to resolve this internal political dispute, but also would more complicate the situation. Mr. President, Even if we accept that the Syrian situation should be discussed under agenda item 34, this is one side of the coin but this coin has another side. The issue is that by considering this situation under the Armed Conflict, we explicitly recognize that there are armed groups in Syria fighting the Government forces and commit violence and destroy public building and infrastructures. The question arises from where and what sources these groups obtained their arms and sophisticated equipment. Anyway what is more regrettable, however, is that the sponsors of the resolution chose not to accommodate any amendments to the resolution whereas if accepted, it could have turned the resolution closer to a balanced and comprehensive one and more adaptive to the real situation on the ground in Syria. The amendments were calling “all sections of the Syrian opposition to dissociate themselves from armed groups engaged in acts of violence” and highlighting the importance for the armed groups to stop their “attacks against state institutions and quarters of the cities and towns”. These are key issues in the resolution of the crisis in Syria. As long as armed groups continue to resort to violence, the crisis obviously would continue. We should be clear and steadfast in condemning any act of violence and terrorism in any form and manifestation. Foreign interferences and acts of violence and the incitement to terrorism would put more oil onto the fire. As we stated before, Syria has historically played an important role in the Middle East. Prolonged instability and unrest in Syria would have adverse consequences to the peace and stability in the Middle East region. Destabilizing the Middle East and promoting violence in this region eventually serves the interests of the Zionist regime and the criminal acts against the humanity, Muslims and Arab world. We should all work together for a comprehensive, effective and practical way to help a peaceful resolution of the present crisis in Syria. The resolution in its present wording would not lead us to that goal. I thank you Mr. President.