SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: Araghchi’s two statements serve as an autopsy of "international law" and "human rights."

https://x.com/aprajitanefes/status/2101288533181018466

Aprajita Nafs Nefes Ancient Believer

|Araghchi’s two statements serve as an autopsy of "international law" and "human rights."

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi made two statements. He named no specific countries. He cited no specific events. He listed no casualty figures.

"If international law is disregarded whenever the interests of major powers demand it, then one can no longer speak of the rule of law."
"If human rights are an inherent right for some nations but a conditional privilege for others, then they can no longer be called universal."

The power of these two statements lies not in what they say, but in what they leave unsaid.

Araghchi did not say "the United States." He did not say "Israel." He did not say "Gaza." He did not say "Yemen." He did not say "Minab." He did not say "Algeria." He did not say "Sardasht."

He allowed the terms "international law" and "human rights" to deliver the indictment themselves.

When a foreign minister stops saying "You have violated international law" and instead says "If international law is treated this way, it ceases to exist," he is telling his audience: the problem is not a specific violation; the problem is that the rules themselves have been redefined.

The premise of the rule of law is that rules apply to everyone. The definition of human rights is that they belong to everyone.

If rules apply only when major powers do not require an exemption, and if human rights exist only when the West chooses to invoke them, then "international law" and "human rights" are no longer rules or rights. They are tools.

And tools can be picked up or put down. They can be used to strike others or to grant oneself an exemption.

Araghchi did not say, "You are using them as tools." He described the consequences of their use: the disappearance of the rule of law and the loss of universality.

That is why he named no names. Naming names implies the problem lies with a specific individual. Not naming names implies the problem is structural.

And structural problems do not vanish simply by changing a president, a foreign minister, or a prime minister.