Trump and Rouhani at the United Nations Security Council

A short time remains before the United Nations General Assembly and the special session of the Security Council. The significance of this year's meeting coincides with the existing tensions between Iran and the United States over a range of issues that began following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. The onset of some sanctions and the approaching date of secondary sanctions from November 4, along with major disagreements over Syria, Iraq, and Israel, are among the other items on this list. The U.S. President intends to chair one of the special sessions of the Security Council, during which he will address the Security Council members regarding Iran's missile and nuclear programs, as well as its regional behavior, and refer to violations of international law by Iran and what is termed Tehran's destabilizing actions in the Middle East. Some reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also interested in attending this special Security Council session. Iran's presence at the meeting is natural and legal, but the presence of representatives from non-member countries, especially Israel, at such a meeting is unprecedented, which, along with Donald Trump's chairmanship of the session, increases the likelihood of Iran's absence. This article examines the dimensions of this issue while considering the historical role of the Security Council. What is the rotating presidency of the Security Council and how is it determined? Shortly after the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, the Security Council was created by agreement among its members. The United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia were established as the five permanent members, with 10 other countries elected as non-permanent members. The membership of non-permanent members is for two years, and each of the 15 members takes turns presiding in alphabetical order. The first meeting of this council was held on January 17, 1946, with Australia being the first president of the Security Council, as it was the first country alphabetically at that time. The next was Brazil, followed by China. At the end of one year, only 12 members fulfill their rotating presidency, thus the presidency does not start from the beginning but continues based on the joining of new members and according to the name of the country in English, and changes that occur in subsequent years with the end of the two-year membership of non-permanent members alter the order of the presidency. For instance, in 2000, Singapore was elected to the council for membership starting January 2001, but since Russia was the last rotating president in December 2000, Singapore simultaneously took over the presidency as it began its term, considering that 'S' comes after 'R'. How are the non-permanent members of the council elected? The 10 non-permanent members are elected from various geographical regions of the world and are chosen by the vote of all UN members at the annual General Assembly, with their membership determined in the last month based on vacancies in the council. One or more countries may be nominated for membership for consecutive years and gain the necessary votes for temporary membership in the Security Council, while others may fail to gain sufficient votes for many years. For example, Iran has only been elected to the Security Council once in its 72-year history for a two-year term (1955-1956) and has never been selected for such a position again. During its two years of membership, Iran held the rotating presidency of the Security Council once in November 1955 and again in November 1956. Syria independently held the rotating presidency of the council twice in 1947 and 1948. However, after forming a United Arab Republic with Egypt, it jointly presided over the council twice with that country in January and December 1961. After separating from Egypt, Syria held the presidency only once in 1970 during the remainder of its membership and again under the name of the Syrian Arab Republic in August 2003. Iraq is another country that has only been elected to the council twice (1957-1958 and 1974-1975) during its political life and has therefore only presided four times. In comparison, Japan has been elected for two-year terms 10 times and has held the rotating presidency 20 times. It can be said that the international political environment, the economic, political, and regional significance, the level of coordination or tension and conflict with the international environment, and the personalities of leaders influence their selection for non-permanent membership. The membership and votes of non-permanent members affect the international security environment, and UN members do not want countries that are in conflict with international security to also hold membership in the Security Council. The U.S. rotating presidency of the Security Council During its 72 years of permanent membership in the Security Council, the U.S. has held the rotating presidency 62 times for one month, meaning that in addition to the veto power that the five permanent members possess, it has effectively presided over the Security Council for more than five years. Naturally, achieving global security goals or planning to reach security objectives is possible through coalition-building and consensus in the Security Council, and the five powers with veto rights try to advance their agendas, especially when they hold the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Merely holding the presidency and creating a favorable atmosphere is not sufficient for a country in charge to obtain the desired votes, as the final vote can be countered and neutralized by the veto of a major power. At the same time, having a vital issue raised in the Security Council and facing a veto does not remove that issue from the UN agenda; rather, the pursuing country can bring it back to the General Assembly and seek votes from the assembly for that specific matter. The President in the position of Security Council presidency It may be asked whether there are special regulations that allow the president of a country to preside over the Security Council. In response, it should be noted that the presidency of the council is not dependent on an individual. A senior diplomat representing the country at the UN or, in some cases, the foreign minister of a country can sit in the presidency. Currently, Ms. Nikki Haley is the U.S. permanent ambassador to the UN. Nikki Haley holds the presidency of the Security Council during the U.S. rotating presidency in September (this month), but one or more sessions during the total monthly meetings may be chaired by another individual. In rare cases, due to the importance and sensitivity of the issue, a Security Council meeting is convened under the presidency of a president and the presence of the presidents of member countries, which is referred to as a summit-level meeting. Until 2009, such meetings had only occurred six times in the history of this council. The first time a Security Council meeting was held at the summit level was on January 31, 1992, under the rotating presidency of the UK. The significance of that meeting followed the end of the Cold War and the proposal of collective security. The agenda of the meeting was 'The Responsibility of the Security Council in Maintaining International Peace and Security,' and the presence of heads of most countries in the General Assembly provided a suitable context for holding a special Security Council meeting at the summit level. However, in the past two decades, U.S. presidents have shown particular interest in sitting at the UN Security Council. In 2009 and 2014, the U.S. rotating presidency coincided with September. The Security Council meeting in September usually follows the General Assembly, where world leaders are present and speak, thus many leaders are in New York. Another reason that makes this month significant for Americans is the September 2001 terrorist events that occurred during George W. Bush's presidency. A Security Council meeting chaired by the U.S. in September is more sensitive for America and directly tied to national security and interests. In contrast, a presidency that begins in other months does not carry the same level of significance. In 2009, for the first time, Ms. Susan Rice announced that the September 24 Security Council meeting would be chaired by President Barack Obama. It was decided that, contrary to usual practice, the council would not focus on a specific country, and President Obama would discuss non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), preventing the trafficking of nuclear materials, and securing those materials in the Security Council. At that time, threats and nuclear developments from Colonel Gaddafi, the then President of Libya, as well as from North Korea, were pressing international security issues. In the September 2014 meeting, the U.S. also held the rotating presidency, and the special session on September 24, which followed the General Assembly, was dedicated to threats and terrorist actions against global peace and security. That special session was once again chaired by President Barack Obama. Thus, September and the U.S. president's presidency over a special session of the Security Council became a tradition that this time will be repeated by Donald Trump, the 45th president of the U.S. This time, according to the U.S. representative to the UN, the president intends to focus on the Islamic Republic of Iran, its missile and nuclear programs, and its regional behavior, and to address violations of international law by Iran and what is termed Tehran's destabilizing actions in the Middle East, all while the U.S. recently ignored Security Council Resolution 2231 by withdrawing from the nuclear agreement known as the JCPOA, which the U.S. also signed. Possible reactions and the best choice for Iran The best choice for Iran is to participate at an equal level with others, namely at the presidential level. There is concern that Iran's position may become a defensive stance that is unnecessary and avoidable; Iran can engage in reciprocal attacks and not just defend against the accusations leveled against it. At the same time, resorting to history and repeating narratives such as the role of the CIA in the coup, and U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, etc., is a sermon that has been repeated for 40 years. Iran must take a position commensurate with current issues. Within the framework of the nuclear agreement, there are still many untold stories, and indeed strong arguments can be made. At the same time, Iran must clarify its regional positions in a proportionate and convincing manner from the perspective of national interests and security and be aware that the presence of the Israeli Prime Minister (if it occurs) is not for welcoming the Iranian President. Israel claims that it is the target of Iran's security threats. Perhaps this is the best opportunity for Iran to logically position itself and delineate between threats and security concerns to reduce hostility from Israel. Iran must clarify its objectives regarding its regional presence and influence and convince the summit leaders that such a level of presence does not threaten the security of others or at least express its desired conditions for retreating from those problematic positions. Iran can, of course, send its permanent representative, Gholamali Khoshroo, to the meeting. This would mean accepting all accusations or would have a very weak defensive/diplomatic aspect. Since the meeting is at the level of heads of state, Khoshroo's presence would not be sufficient to clarify Iran's positions. He cannot create commitments for the government on his own, while the president can accept commitments and, in the future, if the desired conditions for Iran are not met, can evade those commitments. A major obstacle that the Iranian president faces is the heavy burden of the absolute rule of the cleric over all aspects of policymaking. If Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, cannot gain the consensus of the right-wing and Islamic fundamentalists in Tehran, Qom, and Mashhad before attending this meeting, it would be better for him not to participate in the annual General Assembly meeting at all. In fact, if Iran participates at a level lower than the president in this meeting, it will unnecessarily lose a free platform, which will be used unilaterally and against Iran.