Sweden sponsors resolution on human rights violations against Tehran

Countries are not just an image on a geographical map that others recognize solely by its geographical dimensions and angles.

In addition to its geographical image, every country has a mental image in the international system.

In other words, this mental image is a "judgment" that others have of a particular country. Countries' behavior towards that particular country is not based solely on its geographical dimensions but also on its image. For example, what is your image of the Swiss government? Would you be willing to invest in Switzerland? The same question can be asked about Cambodia in Asia or Congo in Africa. Would you be willing to invest in these countries?

Whatever your answer to these questions is, it is not simply a result of the geographical picture of that country, but rather a result of the image of that country. It is this picture drawn of that country that makes you judge that country to go on a tourist trip there, to invest in it, to conduct business exchanges, to choose it as a place to study or live, etc.

Such a characteristic of any country is called "international credibility" in political literature. Therefore, political systems spend huge amounts of money to have a favorable image in the international system. How is the Islamic Republic internationally?

The Islamic Republic in the international arena

To answer this question, if we want to have a comprehensive picture of the image of the Islamic Republic, we must examine the four decades of the regime's existence, which is beyond the scope of this article. For example, Mohammad Khatami's initiative to create a dialogue between civilizations was an innovative move to present a different image of Iran, which in practice did not lead anywhere amid internal disputes, to the extent that Khatami himself has now been banned from being photographed. When dialogue and discussion are eliminated within the members of a regime and replaced by violence and anger, what can be the international image of that country?

Since a comprehensive examination of the Islamic Republic's international reputation is beyond the scope of this note, only a "rare case" in recent days will be mentioned.

After a trip to Tehran, Sweden sponsors a resolution on human rights violations

Within seven days of a high-level Swedish delegation visiting Iran, Sweden has sponsored a resolution condemning human rights violations against its host. This is either unprecedented or rare.

The story goes that on February 11 and 12, the Swedish Prime Minister visited Tehran at the head of a high-level delegation. During this trip, in addition to meeting with Hassan Rouhani, he also met with Ayatollah Khamenei. However, within a week of this meeting, the Swedish government has now submitted a draft resolution on human rights violations in Iran to the UN Human Rights Council.

If such an action were taken by any country towards another country, it would in itself convey an inappropriate message. However, if this action were taken, for example, by Canada, at least Tehran could justify that this action was taken in the context of, for example, severing Tehran-Ottawa relations. However, what is Tehran's response now when we recall that the prime minister of a country like Sweden is warmly welcomed by the host during official ceremonies in Tehran and taken to meet the Leader of the Revolution, but within seven days, he becomes the sponsor of such a resolution?

If Sweden had treated North Korea this way, would it not be a distorted image of North Korea?

Moreover, now that Sweden has taken such a step, the next question is what was the level of the Islamic Republic's response to this action? Was the Swedish ambassador summoned to the Foreign Ministry at the very least?

It is interesting to note that throughout the Islamic Republic's governance (government, parliament, leadership, etc.), the only reaction came from the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, who said: "Presenting a draft human rights resolution is not a new issue and has nothing to do with the Swedish Prime Minister's visit to our country (!)."

Sweden's condemnation of Saudi Arabia and Riyadh's response

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has taken such a false and incorrect position, even though he himself is well aware that countries are no less sensitive in protecting their international reputation than their geographical territory. Just one example below is enough for the Foreign Ministry spokesman to know what a grave mistake he has made in concealing the truth.

In March 2015, a storm suddenly swept through Riyadh-Stockholm relations. Riyadh recalled its ambassador from Sweden, and Stockholm threatened to cancel its military contract with Saudi Arabia.

The incident began when the Swedish foreign minister condemned the flogging of a blogger critical of the Saudi government, Raif Badawi, by calling it a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia's reaction to this slight criticism from a Swedish minister was so harsh that after summoning the Swedish ambassador, Riyadh recalled its ambassador from Stockholm. It blocked his scheduled speech at the Arab League and announced that it would not issue visas to Swedish citizens. In support of Riyadh, several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, also recalled their ambassadors.

All of this Saudi response was only to a verbal stance taken by the Swedish Foreign Minister, not the official stance of the entire Swedish government. Now compare this to Sweden's submission of a draft resolution on human rights violations against the Islamic Republic to the UN Human Rights Council, a week after the Swedish Prime Minister's visit to Tehran.

What is more interesting is that the tension between Saudi Arabia and Sweden ended within two weeks with Sweden backing down and the kingdom apologizing to Saudi Arabia. Within two weeks, Riyadh announced that its ambassador had returned to Stockholm following Sweden's apology.

Result:

Stockholm's expedient retreat from its human rights stance against Saudi Arabia was met with strong protests from the country's human rights institutions at the time. As for Saudi Arabia, it seems that the country has so far prevented itself from being condemned in international forums (including on the issue of Yemen) by spending petrodollars.

However, this note was written with the aim of examining a "rare case" that, first, shows how much Iran's "international credibility" has declined and, second, the Islamic Republic's "persuasive power" is so weak and helpless, even in a face-to-face meeting with a European country, that within seven days of the Swedish Prime Minister's visit to Iran, this country sponsored a resolution on human rights violations against its host.

This note is not written with the aim of accusing Sweden of ungratefulness, because, based on the gross and systematic violation of human rights in Iran, such an action was very correct and had precedents before Sweden.

The content of this note is that this rare event is, firstly, a clear sign of the tarnished image of the Islamic Republic, and secondly, it is evidence of the lethargy of a system incapable of protecting its image at the international level, which has not shown any effective response, if it truly claims to have a clean and pure human rights record.

Source: Radio Farda