Gholamali Khoshroo made the remarks on Tuesday, addressing the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East.

He stressed that the three guarantors are determined to continue their cooperation to eliminate all terrorists designated as such by the Security Council, including Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) and Nusrah Front.

Here is the full text of his speech:

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Madam President,

Recent Tehran Tripartite Summit convened in a critical juncture.

Satisfied with the contribution of the Astana format to peace, security and stability in Syria, the Presidents of Iran, Russia and Turkey discussed the way forward to achieve durable peace in the country.

Through their joint statement, they sent clear messages.

They reaffirmed their continued strong commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity. This is an inherent right of each State, and Syria is no exception. It should be strictly respected by all.

Accordingly, they rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism. This explicit and clear-cut message needs to be heard.

As a victim of chemical weapons, Iran condemns, in the strongest possible terms, any use of such weapons by anyone, anytime and anywhere. At the same time, we warn against any attempt to use force against Syria, including under the pretext of the alleged use of such weapons by the Syrian Government. At a time when Syria has destroyed all of its chemical weapons under international supervision, this is only a fabrication to use force against this country. Any such attempt would only further complicate the situation.

Another clear and strong message of the Summit is that the Presidents are determined to continue cooperation to eliminate all terrorists. This means Daesh and Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or Daesh, designated as terrorists by this Council.

This, of course, needs to be conducted by preventing civilian casualties. That is why the Presidents reaffirmed their determination to work towards protecting civilians.

As President Rouhani stressed in the Tehran Summit, combatting terrorism requires a comprehensive approach by taking into account all aspects of this unpleasant phenomenon. From this perspective, the fight against terrorism in Idlib is an integral part of the mission of restoring peace and stability to Syria, but this combat must not hurt the civilians.

Likewise, improving the humanitarian situation via facilitating rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all Syrians in need was highlighted.

Therefore, these would be guiding principles with respect to the ongoing efforts to combat terrorists in Idlib.

Precisely for this reason, they underlined the utmost importance of the separation between terrorists and the armed opposition groups that had joined or would join the ceasefire regime.

Another concrete message of the Tehran Summit is that the Syrian conflict could only end through a negotiated political process.

Against this backdrop, the Presidents stressed the need for, and their resolve to cooperate in, advancing a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process. The right to determine the future of Syria belongs exclusively to Syrians.

To that end, cooperation towards establishing and launching the work of the Constitutional Committee is critical.

Parallel to such efforts, conducive conditions should be prepared for the safe and voluntary return of all refugees and internally displaced persons. This will undoubtedly contribute to the ceasefire and national dialogue and accelerate the reconciliation process.

To that end, convening an international conference on Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons is important.

While Syria is passing through a critical stage in defeating terrorists and regaining its unity and territorial integrity, the international community should stand firm in breathing a new life into this country.

As the Islamic Republic of Iran supported Syria to defeat terrorists, it will play a constructive role in bringing peace and prosperity to this country.

In conclusion, with regard to the statement of U.S. representative, I would like to make it clear that the US military presence and operation in Syria is an act of aggression and thus against the UN Charter and must come to an end.

The bas-relief depicting the head of an Achaemenid soldier, an antique artifact of ancient Iran, was returned to Iran, said Khoshroo late on Tuesday.

The Iranian diplomat recounted that the artifact was excavated 90 years ago in Iran and stolen some years later and all Iran’s efforts to return the valuable piece were futile.

He added that thanks to Iran’s efforts, a complaint was filed in court and the case was closed with final verdict approving Iran’s right ordering the Persian piece to be returned to Iran.

The bas-relief dating back to approximately 500 BC was offered for sale at an art fair in New York.

Confirming that New York attorney returned the Achaemenid era piece to Iranian mission in New York, Khoshroo added that the antique work was sent to Iran on Tuesday evening.

The artefact is an eight-inch-square piece of carved limestone. It belonged to a long line of soldiers depicted on a balustrade at the central building on the Persepolis site. The item, valued at $1.2 million, was reported stolen from Persepolis in 1936.

For the first time in the history of the UN, the United States – a permanent member of the security council with veto power – is engaging in penalising nations across the entire world; not for violating a security council resolution, rather, for abiding by it. The resolution in question, UN security council resolution 2231, was authored (including by the US itself) and passed unanimously by the council.

After more than a year of holding the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA – known also as the Iran deal) to ransom and demanding Iran make a spade of unilateral nuclear and non-nuclear concessions, ultimately, on 8 May 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA. Simultaneously, Trump signed a presidential memorandum to reimpose all US sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the Iran deal. As a result, the agreement that was the culmination of more than a decade of negotiations and was endorsed by security council resolution 2231 now faces an existential moment, especially as the first set of US sanctions come into effect this week.

Security council resolution 2231 underlines “promoting and facilitating the development of normal economic and trade contacts and cooperation with Iran” as an essential part of the JCPOA and calls upon all member states to support its implementation, including to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy, and refrain from actions that undermine it. As part of the JCPOA itself, the US alongside other JCPOA participants, undertook to refrain from any policy intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran. The Trump administration is nonetheless now targeting countries across the world for actually re-engaging Iran economically in accordance with their obligations under security council resolution 2231.

The US withdrawal from JCPOA and reimposition of its sanctions is a serious breach of its legal obligations under the UN charter, which entails its international responsibility. The international community must act in the face of this international intimidation and affront towards the international legal order.

In the Monday session of United Nations Security Council, Gholamali Khoshroo expressed his regret about the fact that Israeli killing of Palestinian children was not included in the UN secretary general’s list of main violators of children rights.

Referring to the war crimes of the Israeli regime against Palestinian children participating in the peaceful demonstrations in Gaza recently, Khoshroo said that the Israeli regime is at the top of the list of the murders of children in the world, calling on the UN secretary general to put Israel at the top of list next year.

He also referred to the killing of Yemeni children by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, saying that the severity of the situation of Yemeni children is comparable to that of Palestinian children.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN further said that although for certain reasons, the names of these countries (Saudi Arabia and UAE) have been removed from the list of violators of children’s rights, that does not change the reality.

Referring to the UN Secretary-General’s report on the increase in the number of children being killed in armed conflicts, he emphasized the need to stop the trend, calling on the UN to halt the killing of children in Palestine, Yemen and the rest of the world.

At the end of the session, the Security Council adopted a resolution on the protection of children in armed conflicts.

Addressing the UN General Assembly’s meeting on “responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”, he added that no one forgets how the inaction on the part of the United Nations in the face of tragic cases of genocide and crimes against humanity as well as outrageous acts of aggression in the last two decades led to the death, injury and displacement of millions of innocent people.

Full text of the statement reads as follows:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Mr. President,

The Islamic Republic of Iran fully shares the sentiment that the international community must be vigilant not to let the horrors of mass killings and genocide of the past be repeated in the future. No one forgets how the inaction on the part of the United Nations in the face of tragic cases of genocide and crimes against humanity as well as outrageous acts of aggression in the last two decades led to the death, injury and displacement of millions of innocent people.

This was more, however, due to the failure of the Security Council to act when action was needed, rather than the result of an absence of normative framework or lack of implementation of the R2P. Thus, it was the inaction of the Security Council due to the lack of political will of its some Permanent Members that brought about the horrible genocide in Rwanda and other similar catastrophes.

The controversies around the R2P are not rooted in the noble notion of prevention of atrocity crimes, but rather in its implementation and scope of application. Examining this concept in practical terms may put it in better perspective and help to make this abstract concept more concrete.

Moreover, discussions on R2P could not be divorced from its political and legal implications. Looking forward should not relieve us from looking back and reminding ourselves of lessons of history. It has been witnessed that, in practice, the R2P is guided by the politicized interests of certain States rather than human dignity and human rights and therefore has been taken far from its alleged objectives and purposes.

This, in its turn, has put into question its legitimacy and applicability as a political tool alleged to be used in times of distress. As a result, the R2P is gradually being developed and seen as a political tool to pave the way for interventionist polices, whenever needed, in a selective manner. This is exactly where the R2P concept faces a real challenge.

In the limited cases where a coercive measure is needed to save the populations, R2P falls within collective security framework of the UN and can only be authorized by the Security Council in full compliance with international law.

The authorization by the Security Council should not be understood as a carte blanch for committing new atrocities. It also goes without saying that the Security Council is not free to selectively opt for authorization of use of force in cases consistent with the will of its Member States and turn a blind eye on clear situations of mass atrocities as we have witnessed in the past and we are currently witnessing.

The Security Council is thus bound by well-established principles of international law and should respect sovereignty of States and their independence and action to prevent mass crime atrocities should be seen as a last resort and once all efforts to take effective measures at the national level have been exhausted.

The scope of application of R2P should be defined in a way that genuinely addresses the plight of mankind whenever they face mass atrocity crimes free from selectivity and double standards and in full conformity with the principles and objectives of the UN Charter. Addressing the misery of people under occupation is the foremost test for the R2P.

The Islamic Republic of Iran insists on the primacy of well-established principles of international law as enshrined by the UN Charter in all circumstances. We hope that any discussions on the issue will be done with an effort to prevent any future abuses of newly emerging concepts such as what we have witnessed in the past about some of the provisions of the UN Charter.

Mr. president,

The normative framework regulating prevention of atrocities is already in place. Compliance with fundamental principles of international law as set forth in the UN Charter contributes to rule of law at the international level and builds upon the existing bulwarks which form the very basis of the international legal order.

The main problem lies in illegitimate unilateral action by certain States which every now and then creates chaos in international relations and undermines existing normative structures. Illegal use of force blatantly demonstrated by sudden unjustified strikes in flagrant violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of UN Member States is a clear example of abusive resort to well-established rules and principles of international law governing self-defense and use of force.

This is what sheds a clear light on the dark future of R2P if it is destined to be used as a political tool in furtherance of the will of a few.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that we are still far from a consensual understanding of the R2P as a concept. We maintain that prior to implementation of the R2P, it is crucial to define its normative content as well as its scope of applications.

The primary responsibility to prevent commission of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity lies with sovereign States. This is echoed by the principles of international law as enshrined by the Charter and also articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 Summit Outcome Document.

Other States or the international community at large may step in to help upon request on a case by case basis and through the United Nations to prevent such horrendous atrocities. This, by no means whatsoever, may imply permit to use force against another State under any pretext such as humanitarian intervention which may pave the way for all manners of politically motivated interventions in other countries. I’m sure no one would like to turn the clock back to the time when theories of ‘just war’ prevailed.

Prevention of mass atrocity crimes should remain the core objective of the R2P. Prevention should be seen as a long-term strategy and be interpreted in broad terms and mainly include non-coercive measures. Even the third pillar of R2P does encompass several measures that do not necessarily call for use of coercive measures.

In this context, R2P should be seen as a framework to assist the vulnerable and failed States to develop their capacity to protect their populations and build safer societies. Prevention involves a broad range of issues ranging from promotion of sustainable development, education and health through to eradication of poverty, marginalization and discrimination.

The international community should discharge its responsibility particularly through providing demand-driven capacity-building with the aim of strengthening the resilience of societies and addressing the root causes of conflicts. The objective of R2P should not be regime change but rather the protection of populations mainly through the empowerment of societies and reduction of inequalities.