What impact will the normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE and Egypt have on the region?
Normalization of relations benefits the entire Middle East region and by extension the rest of the world. A modus vivendi among all nations of the Middle East is necessary to implement the Sustainable Development Goals with the help of BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative.
If everyone were to observe the UN Charter and the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of states, much progress toward peace and reconciliation would be made. It is difficult to understand why the US and EU persist on imposing sanctions on everybody, instead of employing a more persuasive approach to craft a win-win arrangement.
If we were to concentrate on commonalities, the differences could be dealt with gradually in an atmosphere of international solidarity. Surely the populations of all States concerned have the same needs and aspiration – everyone wants respect, harmony, family life, respect for privacy, religion and traditions. Everyone likes to be rewarded for good work, celebrate feasts, laugh and dance. We are all children of the same father. Why then persist on antagonizing each other? The Muslim, Christian and Jewish religions are all committed to peace. That is the path to take.
How will Iran’s membership in regional and international organizations such as BRICS and SCO affect the creation of a multipolar world and resolving regional issues through regional mechanisms?
A multipolar world and gradual de-dollarization are essential to world peace. The best way to arrive at a sustainable peaceful coexistence is through confidence-building gestures, through mutual respect and good faith adherence to bilateral and international treaties. Nothing spoils the international atmosphere more than the violation of treaties and the breach of promises once given. Global problems should be solved globally. Regional problems regionally.
How do you see Iran’s foreign policy power in lifting Western sanctions, for example, in releasing Iran’s frozen assets from South Korea?
The General Assembly adopts year after year a resolution condemning unilateral coercive measures. The most recent was Res. 77/214 of 15 December 2022. Similarly, the Human Rights Council condemns UCMs every year, e.g. by Res. 52/13 of 3 April 2022. As Professor of law I advise my students never to use the term “sanctions” except if we are dealing with UN sanctions under Chapter VII. Everything else should be labelled “unilateral coercive measures”, which are per se illegal, as a violation of the principles of sovereignty, self-determination and the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of other states. Moreover, the term “sanctions” implies that the country that sanctions another somehow possesses moral or legal authority to do so, which is not the case. The US knows that it is acting in contravention of international law and norms of jus cogens, but it gets away with it, because it is a P5 member at the Security Council. Of course, international law does allow “retorsion” in certain well-specified cases. But the conditions thereof are not given, and the freezing of Iranian assets constitutes an “international wrongful act” for purposes of the ILC Draft Code on State responsibility. Finally, a violation of international law by the US or EU or South Korea does not change international law. It cannot. The situation that results is one of impunity because of the absence of a functioning mechanism of enforcement of international law and international judgments.
How do you see Iran’s achievements in the field of foreign policy at the regional level, particularly during President Ebrahim Raisi’s tenure?
I am not competent to answer this question. I welcome every effort to de-escalate tensions and to stretch a hand to rivals. Live and let live must be the over-arching principle for civilized existence on the planet.