US refuses visa for Iran's UN envoy

[Irbis]

The White House has refused to issue a US visa to Iran's nomination for UN ambassador, who was involved in seizure of the US embassy in 1979.

The decision in effect bars Hamid Aboutalebi from taking up the role at the UN, which is based in New York.

Mr Aboutalebi was linked to the student group that took dozens of people hostage at the embassy in Tehran.

President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure from the US Congress not to allow him to enter the country.

Earlier this week, the White House told the Iranian government its selection of a one-time student revolutionary to be UN ambassador was "not viable".

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

The US House of Representatives and the Senate have both voted in favour of a bill barring Mr Aboutalebi from the US. It still requires the signature of the president before it can become law.

Iran says Mr Aboutalebi is one of its most experienced diplomats and stands by his nomination.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Friday the UN and Iran had been told "that we will not issue a visa to Mr Aboutalebi".

He did not say whether President Obama would sign the bill but said the president shared the sentiments of Congress.

In an interview with an Iranian news site last month, Mr Aboutalebi said he was not part of the group that took over the US embassy and was only later asked to translate for the students.

It is believed the US has never before denied a visa for a UN ambassador and correspondents say there is concern among diplomats about the precedent that could be set.

It's so reassuring US representatives have nothing more important to do than draw bills concerning single people. When is next debt limit argument scheduled, again?

Anyway, I'd have though that barring diplomats passage to UN is a big no-no in international law, plus I thought it was supposed to be the president's job to oversee foreign affairs, not congress. Did something change when I wasn't looking? Also, this is how the US restart in relations with Iran supposed to look like? Weren't both countries right in the middle of important negotiations now?

Plus, after last discussion on use of 'alleged' in western press, I must say I like how he is painted as confirmed revolutionary through the article and only on the end the witness says he wasn't really involved. Was he? What happened to verifying facts before reporting, I wonder?

[Kitsune]

Not really the first time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday_Compromise

[fgalkin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act

Slightly more relevant to the discussion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Tanasinn]

Also, this is how the US restart in relations with Iran supposed to look like? Weren't both countries right in the middle of important negotiations now?

You might ask the same question of Iran, who sees fit to send a diplomat to U.S. soil whose credentials seemingly involve aiding a "student" group in taking international diplomats hostage. It's arguably a provocative gesture on both sides.

[Ahriman238]

Iran can't out-asshole us. We as a people learned assholery from the English, refined it through study with the French, then made it into our own elevated art. We have incorporated the foibles of a few dozen immigrant cultures into a great melting pot of dickish behavior. Then we split into two camps and have spent generations practicing on each other, as the only worthy targets of our magnificent ability to be horrible people.

Is this Iran's idea of an insult? We won't even let him in the door. We go straight to the nuclear shit-bombs the moment it even looks like someone is going to fling poo. Now hear this Iran, you may be older than us, may have a culture going back to Persia (with rather dubious continuity, but eh, if we can claim Greece we'll let you have that) your ancestors may have worn trousers when ours had loincloths, but for that reason you can never, ever, be more petty and childish, than us.

[mr friendly guy]

I expect certain posters (who won't be named for now) to jump in this thread making sarcastic statements about how this move is bad because it increases tensions. Otherwise I might think that increasing tensions is only bad when people we don't like do it.

[B5B7]

This raises interesting questions about the status of the UN building - is it on American territory or UN territory? Of course, the plane has to land at a US airport, but it may be possible to create a mobile UN territory vehicle that picks up a passenger direct from the plane, so as they are never technically on US territory.

[K. A. Pital]

I would propose the UNOship to remove the UN from US once and for all.

[Thanas]

I expect certain posters (who won't be named for now) to jump in this thread making sarcastic statements about how this move is bad because it increases tensions. Otherwise I might think that increasing tensions is only bad when people we don't like do it.

You can keep your vendettas to yourself.

[Simon_Jester]

I would propose the UNOship to remove the UN from US once and for all.

Honestly this might be a good idea just for the sake of clearing the air. Putting the UN building in New York made a lot of sense in the post-WWII context, where the UN was supposed to be the... for lack of a better term the successor state to the 'grand alliance' that won the war. Since the US was a major member of that alliance, it was sort of logical.*

[Note that many WWII publications from the Western Allies referred to their alliance as the United Nations]

But now, the world is far more contentious and it's been obvious for over sixty years that there is no serious, credible version of international police. The US is simply another Power playing the game of Great Power Politics.

On a side note, it would also simplify New York's traffic problem; let someone else worry about all those diplomats who like to speed and double-park because diplomatic immunity.[/joke]

[mr friendly guy]

I expect certain posters (who won't be named for now) to jump in this thread making sarcastic statements about how this move is bad because it increases tensions. Otherwise I might think that increasing tensions is only bad when people we don't like do it.

You can keep your vendettas to yourself.

Then I will expand it to say

1. This is somewhat puzzling why they would do this when the US allowed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the country to speak at the UN when Ahmadinejad was thought to be one of the hostage takers. Certainly worse than Mr Aboutalebi who so far is only linked to the group and without more details we have no idea how major or minor his involvement was.

2. The problem of course is that this is an appointment not to the US, but to the UN. It will be like the US objecting to Iran appointing a particular diplomat to Russia or some third country. Which would be an issue between Iran and the third country. Only because the UN is in US territory can they pull this off. This raises an issue that maybe the UN should be somewhere else where the government gives a guarantee that diplomats aren't barred unless they are a threat to that nation.

3. Back to my spill on raising tensions. Undoubtedly it will, but the US is perfectly entitled to voice any disagreements it has with Iran. It does mean that any nation where the US calls for keeping calm, might choose to ignore it as the US feels sometimes its worth doing a particular action even if it does raise tensions.

4. This type of thinking where certain regions should calm down even though they have disputes with each other (even though it may only involve rhetoric and no military or economic force), but other nations can ramp up the rhetoric isn't just confined to politicians.

[Thanas]

That is perfectly fine and I concur that the US should have no business in refusing a visa for a diplomat to the UN. They are perfectly within their rights to bar him from entering any US territory besides the UN complex (aside from travel to and from).

[Mr. Coffee]

I would propose the UNOship to remove the UN from US once and for all.

I really wish the UN would GTFO. For one, it'd stop petty grudge holding bullshit like the above (Seriously, the Iran Hostage Crisis happened a hair over three decades ago, let that shit go already). Also, it'd free up real estate and I wouldn't have to listen to inbred Jesus freaks bitch about how everything the fucking UN does is a sign of the end times.

[K. A. Pital]

I would propose the UNOship to remove the UN from US once and for all.

I really wish the UN would GTFO. For one, it'd stop petty grudge holding bullshit like the above (Seriously, the Iran Hostage Crisis happened a hair over three decades ago, let that shit go already). Also, it'd free up real estate and I wouldn't have to listen to inbred Jesus freaks bitch about how everything the fucking UN does is a sign of the end times.

Yup. It would also help New York as Simon said. I mean, it's really not much harder to pay for an ocean liner than for the current building.

[LaCroix]

Also, there are two more permanent seats of the UN, which both happen to be in neutral countries.

[Zaune]

I reckon the old League of Nations building in Geneva might be a good place to relocate to. If we can trust any country on Earth not to play these sorts of games it's the Swiss.

[LaCroix]

*clears throat* Do you have anything you want to say against the Austrians?

[Thanas]

Die Schluchtenscheißer sollen mal endlich Ruhe geben.

[Col. Crackpot]

The bigger question here is the efficacy and the purpose of the UN in general. If Iraq and now the Ukraine have taught us anything, the UN is useless in the post cold war world anyway. It existed first as a "Yay we won WW II club" and then as a forum to keep us from nuking each other back to the stone age. World War II was 70 years ago, and we know well enough now not to nuke each other back to the stone age. Furthermore, The US, Russia and China are going to do whatever the fuck they feel like anyway, UN be damned. What benefit does the UN even provide anymore that can't be done through various NGO's and regional alliances?

The first person that mention peacekeepers (aka disease preaders/shit stirrers/do nothings in blue hats) is getting a punch in the throat.

[K. A. Pital]

The first person that mention peacekeepers (aka disease preaders/shit stirrers/do nothings in blue hats) is getting a punch in the throat.

Actually, he doesn't, because when a NATO member or UNSC member captures some territory (Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, etc.) the blue hats can serve to basically solidify the status-quo and prevent from redrawing the new borders. It's not much, but if 'blue hats' eventually arrive in the Ukraine and formally create a DMZ somewhere between East and West, that'd be very appreciated.

[Col. Crackpot]

The first person that mention peacekeepers (aka disease preaders/shit stirrers/do nothings in blue hats) is getting a punch in the throat.

Actually, he doesn't, because when a NATO member or UNSC member captures some territory (Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, etc.) the blue hats can serve to basically solidify the status-quo and prevent from redrawing the new borders. It's not much, but if 'blue hats' eventually arrive in the Ukraine and formally create a DMZ somewhere between East and West, that'd be very appreciated.

These peacekeepers don't just appear. They come from the very countries that just secured the territory. Just now they have a murkier command structure, different uniforms and restricted ROE. Why can't that role be performed by regional allies more effectively and at less cost?

[K. A. Pital]

The first person that mention peacekeepers (aka disease preaders/shit stirrers/do nothings in blue hats) is getting a punch in the throat.

Why can't that role be performed by regional allies more effectively and at less cost?

Cause unlike 'blue hats' those allies wouldn't have a common command and thus could just start shooting at each other in the best proxy war traditions, and unlike a situation where UN forces kill some other UN forces and it will be written off as a very bad unlucky accident, proxy wars can spiral into bigger proxy wars?

[mr friendly guy]

The bigger question here is the efficacy and the purpose of the UN in general. If Iraq and now the Ukraine have taught us anything, the UN is useless in the post cold war world anyway. It existed first as a "Yay we won WW II club" and then as a forum to keep us from nuking each other back to the stone age. World War II was 70 years ago, and we know well enough now not to nuke each other back to the stone age. Furthermore, The US, Russia and China are going to do whatever the fuck they feel like anyway, UN be damned. What benefit does the UN even provide anymore that can't be done through various NGO's and regional alliances?

The first person that mention peacekeepers (aka disease preaders/shit stirrers/do nothings in blue hats) is getting a punch in the throat.

Can NGO's do more than the UN? I am interested on why you think that. A quick glance at list of specialised agencies of the UN include some heavy hitters like the World Health Organisation, International Atomic Energy Agency, The world bank and the International Monetary Fund* and a whole bunch of organisations I haven't heard of.

* the World Bank and the IMF have high degrees of independence, so you could argue if the UN disappeared they would still continue like business as usual.

[Col. Crackpot]

You answered your own question in a way Mr. Friendly Guy. Ill elaborate later on when i'm on a laptop and not a phone.

[Ralin]

I would propose the UNOship to remove the UN from US once and for all.

If the UN wants to do even more to remind everyone that they're impotent to do anything to stop the US from violating their rules they can be my guest.