Our values are meant to be upheld by us, not others.
Denying anyone entry into US because that someone insults us would be against those values.
So freedom of speech means that the US should allow a FOREIGN NATIONAL into the country no matter what they say?
A moral argument can certainly be made that if we value freedom of speech, we should not deny people visas solely because of what they say. (Insert standard disclaimer refuting the guy who is going to point out “BUT WHAT IF THEY SAY THEY’RE GOING TO BLOW US UP!!!111”)
If values are applied selectively, they cease to be values.
There’s effectively nothing to stop the State Department from barring anyone entrance, nor from granting entrance to insulting people. These are simply issues of international politics and diplomacy. The worst that could happen is other countries would do the same to us. Or maybe start a war.
I doubt any country is going to start a war just because the US prevented their diplomat from attending the UN. More likely the UN would look for new headquarters if the US started doing this routinely. It’s already got satellite headquarters in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi which could probably house the General Assembly and Secretariat until a new purpose-built complex is erected somewhere.
The Secrete Service protects many heads of state while they are here. I have no doubt that he would be tailed if not “escorted” to the building. But even if we did not allow him to leave the airport than what the UN might bitch but we are one of the permanent seats the US has helped the UN become what it is I doubt anything more will happen than that. He would probablyjust go to vienna and teleconference
That could prove embarrassing once we nuke the city.
US once denied a visa gto Arafat to visit the UN (as the UN was about to recognise the PLO) and the UN simply decamped to Geneva and did the deed anyway.
So yeah. Not a good idea.
The UN can piss off to Geneva for good as far as I’m concerened.
While the US has to permit diplomats to travel to New York to attend the UN, it can restrict their movement beyond that. In the early 1990s, I worked for a small engineering firm in the New York suburbs and we had security clearances. During one of the visits from the Defense Intelligence Agency officer, we were given wallet cards listing license plate prefixes. Any diplomatic plate with a license number beginning with one of those prefixes was assigned to a car that was not supposed to travel outside Manhattan. So we were supposed to report any such vehicle we saw in the suburbs. I wish I’d kept that card, even though the data on it would not be obsolete.
In the 90’s, the diplomatic plates I saw around the DC metro area had two letters as prefix which designated which diplomatic entity they represented. The State Department then decided to reassign the letters, because they were worried that the diplomats might be targeted by bad people, and at that point it was commonly known who was who. Of course, within days of issuing the plates, you could buy a publication in downtown DC which gave a listing of who’s who.
This occurred about the same time as our annual security briefing (sort of a “If asked, don’t tell”). An FBI agent informed us that one country in particular was not happy with their newest designation: “FC” (you know the one on death’s door aka the Evil Empire. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Two years later, I looked out the office window, and I see the dreaded FC plate in the parking lot! I dutifully notify security guy who informs me that some guy is here to drum up business for his rocket company (we build satellites you see). Since then, I’ve watched countless Russians marching around (always escorted) visiting, working, selling, etc. even some who ended up working for our company. Conversely, I’ve been to Baikonur on launch campaigns which were unheard of 20 years ago.
Life is weird.
Why so mad at UN? The UN is a very important part of US foreign policy objectives.