So you’re admitting that the point is “US bad, Not-US good”, then?
Seems to me then that any country that has people imprisoned in Guantanamo has a moral route to try to destroy the USA- what a fine excuse for terrorism; the irony is palpable.
They’re certainly welcome to try.
No, you are saying US Good all the time, the rest can go hang.
I am saying that under the Rule of Law of some kind (accepted limits on behaviour) States should keep their word and act legally. The US has decided to follow the rule of the bully everywhere- strength equals morality.
They are. That is the irony. Guantanamo has probably caused a thousand times the problems it was set up to avoid!
Don’t be ridiculous. We fund, arm, shield, and on occasion elect such people to high office. We’re in no position to pretend to moral superiority on this issue.
That is essentially an admission that the issue here is that America is mad with power, not what happened in 1979.
So does that apply to Iran as well? If so, then is Iran not in contravention of the Rule of Law by allowing a terrorist and war criminal such as this to walk free?
I do not believe that most US politicians are ‘mad with power’. I do believe that their moral compass becomes diverted when addressing issues regarding US actions which differ from the issues when other countries do so. This is a recurrent theme, much more obvious in hegemonic powers (Rome, Spanish Empire, British Empire, Usa - and maybe soon China) where they lose the ability to see their nation and its needs as in fair competition with others. Living in a smaller, less powerful, less bullying country, one is more aware of the nuances of behaviour and hence possibly less dogmatic and self-centered.
“My Country Right or Wrong” is not a defensible moral position.
He is only a terrorist according to the laws of your Nation. He is an upstanding citizen to Iran. Vice versa George Bush Senior.
At least Iran did not break a treaty obligation by appointing him ambassador; the US did.
I’m curious, has the OP ever had a fault with any country other than the United States? He doesn’t live here, and I’d say the overwhelming majority of threads he has started in his posting history have been nothing but attempts to bash the United States. How shows no willingness to look at the multiple layers to various issues and just engages in simplistic American bashing.
I’m seeing identical behavior from John Mace in this thread.
How about we start with demonstrating, as a matter of fact, that we have treaty obligations to grant Visa to anyone who has a position at the UN. Once you’ve done that we can further discuss the legal issues.
As for the moral issues, since time immemorial it has been customary that you respect the diplomats who represent other countries. It’s often been violated, but even in the Ancient world said violation was notable enough to be written down and typically condemned.
We can have a thirty page discussion of irrelevance about the Shah, the evils of Guantanamo Bay (which have nothing to do with diplomatic privileges and show crass and immature opinions when they are brought up on this topic), how the Iran protesters were just and shining beacons of light fighting against the evil oil imperialism of the West and etc.
But maybe foolishly, I’d like to sidestep all of that and instead focus on one narrow, relevant point: the Iranians who took hostage 66 Americans who were working for the State Department in diplomatic capacity had violated the ancient concept that you do not mistreat the other side’s diplomats. That’s supposed to be a universal rule. What would we think of the United States if the U.S. imprisoned Russian diplomats and demanded the return of Edward Snowden in exchange for the return of those diplomats? We’d condemn the United States and the international community would condemn the United States.
That is exactly what the Iranians did to American diplomats. Against all norms of diplomatic privilege they kept them hostage, subjected them to mock executions and etc, and justified it by demanding we return a wanted criminal (the former Shah) to them.
Part of diplomatic privilege is respect for the concept that you need lines of communication with others, even your enemies. Even ancient Kings and Potentates recognized this reality. But at the same time, underlying that respect is that you choose your diplomats carefully. They should not be someone who offends their host, and it’s also been recognized that if you violate another person’s diplomat that is a grave offense. So what does it say to make a diplomat of your country someone who was involved himself in the violation of diplomatic privileges?
It is an insult to the U.N., for which Iran should be condemned and the U.N. itself should deny to accept this person as a diplomat. However, as the host of the U.N. the United States is also justified in denying this person a visa–a U.S. sovereign activity not subject to review by the U.N.
There is a difference between belligerent leaders like Khrushchev, who respected diplomatic privilege and the concept of dialogue, and persons who disrespect diplomatic privilege and have been involved in the torture and imprisonment of diplomats.
Showing that I actually can look at a multilayered situation in its entirety ( unlike Pjen and John Mace) I will also point out that while the Iranian has not apologized, he has tried to explain his actions. He was a translator, and not involved in any violence. I do not believe that makes him an appropriate choice, but it makes him at least a bit more reasonable a choice than one of the guys carrying guns.
Still, it’s an Iranian insult designed to test us during the nuclear negotiations. I also want to note we have not formally banned him yet, the President hasn’t signed the legislation passed by Congress. He has only publicly said that he doesn’t want this guy coming over here. The hope is Iran will retract him and it won’t be necessary to go that route.
Nice ad hominem attack as an introduction. I may find time to read your post later to see if the argument improves.
So under Iranian law it’s perfectly OK to invade an embassy and hold its staffers hostage?
I suppose that should be kept in mind if the US ever comes into conflict with any nation where Iran maintains an embassy.
Politically, I’m not sure I care about offending the UN. I think the UN has perversely outlived its usefulness. The UN was founded as a great power arena, anything about true equality between nations was absolutely never intended. While flowery prose has been used when talking about the UN, it is primarily a tool of the great powers.
But it also gives some voice to tinpot dictatorship countries through the UN General Assembly. This means that the UN has really just become a forum in which illegitimate governments are legitimized. Since the Great Powers all have a negative on one another’s UN action, it can never truly resolve any issue between Great Powers where their interests collide.
I think instead the UN should be significantly deemphasized in importance by the United States and we should just recognize our State Department and our direct contact with other powers is the real place where diplomacy gets done. The idea that the UN prevents wars between Great Powers is intrinsically not true. Economic and military reality has prevented those wars, not the UN. The idea that the UN prevents other wars is also untrue, as the UN’s response to aggressive war is usually hampered by Great Powers blocking any response. Even when they do not, the response to aggressive wars is usually tepid.
The only two exceptions were the Korean War and the first Gulf War. However, in the case of the Korean War the UN response actually lead to a war between the United States and China and threats of nuclear strikes by the United States.
I think the UN should be degraded in how it is respected and viewed by the United States–part of showing this new stance should be reducing our funding of the UN budget (currently 22% of it) to 0.5-1% of said budget, and offering to let the UN relocate to Geneva (where the General Assembly has met in the past.) The UN should be seen as just a peer to organizations like the IMF, WTO etc, not any sort of preeminent international agency.
No reason, since you have mis-characterized my retelling of your posting history as an ad hominem, you have demonstrated yourself as someone not worth discussing any issue with. I’ll give your further comments in this thread no regard.
If you don’t like your own posting history that is your own concern, but my repeating it is not an ad hominem.
The real diplomacy with Iran is in direct talks, we aren’t conducting diplomacy with them through their UN Ambassador. Given the Iranian response to this, there is little evidence that this will threaten the nuclear talks, maybe it will prove to, but the initial Iranian response doesn’t suggest that it will.
Actually this part is no longer true–having not read the news in a day or so I was unaware when I typed this that the President had officially denied his visa application. It doesn’t appear, at least yet, that Obama has actually signed the Congressional legislation–I suspect in part because it’s kind of broad and would in theory require the President to reject visas of a lot more UN Ambassadors than just this one guy.
Have now read your somewhat blunderbus reply it continues the style of the introduction.
Lets look at some key points.
You say:
" How about we start with demonstrating, as a matter of fact, that we have treaty obligations to grant Visa to anyone who has a position at the UN. Once you’ve done that we can further discuss the legal issues."
Response:
"The 1947 basing agreement between the U.S. and the United Nations stipulates that “the federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations.” This is why leaders like Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, and Muammar al-Qaddafi—who would not normally be welcomed in the United States—have been able to attend the U.N. assembly.
The U.S. has denied visas to lower-ranking Iranian officials hoping to attend the assembly, and last year left a visa request by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir—under indictment by the International Criminal Court—unprocessed until he called off his plans to travel to New York. But denying a visa to an ambassador would be more dramatic."
As to your assertion:
“I also want to note we have not formally banned him yet, the President hasn’t signed the legislation passed by Congress. He has only publicly said that he doesn’t want this guy coming over here.”
From the cite in the OP:
"The White House has made good on a promise not to let an Iranian tied to the 1979 hostage crisis travel to the United States.
The administration on Friday denied a visa to Hamid Abutalebi, who sought entry as Iran’s recently appointed ambassador to the United Nations. The visa denial came a day after Congress passed quickie legislation to bar entry to the US to individuals tied to a national security threat.
“We concur with the Congress and share the intent of the bill,” press secretary Jay Carney said. Earlier this week, he said the White House had “informed the government of Iran that this potential selection is not viable”."
Denying a Visa is pretty effective in carrying out the intention of the legislation!
I will continue to consider your post for any tenable and defensible arguments. (Update- have done so. Nothing to argue with there- no real argument advanced.)
The US foreign policy has been entirely dependent on getting UN agreement to its interventions in other countries. Without such an arena, the US would be seen as just the international bully it would often like to be. Moral politicians know that it is good to have the UN as a filter to avoid the role of world bully being fulfilled- at least it provides a fig leaf and some amelioration (see Syria).
I wasn’t aware that there were Iranian diplomats in Guantanamo. Perhaps you could provide a cite?
Regards,
Shodan
The actual treaty being abrogated:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp
SECTION 11
The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation.
SECTION 12
The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.
SECTION 13
(a) Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11. When visas are required for persons referred to in that Section, they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.
(b) Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the residence of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11 and, specifically, shall not be applied in such manner as to require any such person to leave the United States on account of any activities performed by him in his official capacity. In case of abuse of such privileges of residence by any such person in activities in the United States outside his official capacity, it is understood that the privileges referred to in Section 11 shall not be construed to grant him exemption from the laws and regulations of the United States regarding the continued residence of aliens, provided that:
(1) No proceedings shall be instituted under such laws or regulations to require any such person to leave the United States except with the prior approval of the Secretary of State of the United States. Such approval shall be given only after consultation with the appropriate Member in the case of a representative of a Member (or a member of his family) or with the Secretary-General or the principal executive officer of the appropriate specialized agency in the case of any other person referred to in Section 11;
(2) A representative of the Member concerned, the Secretary-General or the principal Executive Officer of the appropriate specialized agency, as the case may be, shall have the right to appear in any such proceedings on behalf of the person against whom they are instituted;
(3) Persons who are entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities under Section 15 or under the General Convention shall not be required to leave the United States otherwise than in accordance with the customary procedure applicable to diplomatic envoys accredited to the United States.
(e) This section does not prevent the requirement of reasonable evidence to establish that persons claiming the rights granted by Section 11 come within the classes described- in that section, or the reasonable application of quarantine and health regulations.
(d) Except as provided above in this section and in the General Convention, the United States retains full control and authority over the entry of persons or property into the territory of the United States and the conditions under which persons may remain or reside there.
(e) The Secretary-General shall, at the request of the appropriate American authorities, enter into discussions with such authorities, with a view to making arrangements for registering the arrival and departure of persons who have been granted visas valid only for transit to and from the headquarters district and sojourn therein and in its immediate vicinity.
(f) The United Nations shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit entry of persons and property into the headquarters district and to prescribe the conditions under which persons may remain or reside there.