Thank you very much. It's a very vital question.

I hold that a nuclear deal is not the end of anything. I think it's the beginning of a new phase. I liken it to a first half goal rather than the golden goal that finishes the match. There's a need to maintain and to play the game to make sure you defend your interests.

It's been said for a long time now that security, peace, and development are interrelated. Without human rights we don't have peace, or development, or security.

If we are seeking security through a nuclear deal, it becomes important to realize that unless the countries concerned also respect your human rights you will continue to have that country as a source of concern.

We aren't concerned with human rights in Iran because they possess a nuclear weapon; we are concerned because these violations represent a very egregious situation for the values we hold dear. When countries violate human rights, they become a problem of their own, to their neighbours, and to others as well.

These concerns will continue regardless of whatever deal may become feasible on the nuclear front. Once they have a deal of any sort, any agreement of any sort, what is required to maintain that transparency? Accountability, good faith, and performance all apply in a good equal measure to those undertakings and on the human rights field as well. If countries aren't willing to address these concerns across the board in the same manner, then how secure are you on any front?

I maintain that you cannot divorce security from respect for human rights. In the long run, if we are concerned about stability, and if we are concerned about security, we have to take on board the fact that democracy and respect for human rights are an integral part of the order of framework. Therefore, we have to bear that in mind.

Transcript

Discussions (0)