If we want to bring reality into the discussion it should be recognized that Iran’s appointment was designed as some sort of test on the United States. Iran constitutionally has a division of power that leads to factions with different independent acting ability. I don’t know which faction was behind this, but our responsibility is maintaining the appropriate negotiating stance in the nuclear talks and I actually suspect if we hadn’t rejected this ambassador it may have weakened our negotiating position by making us appear weak. I view it as a test of American resolve, which is intrinsically linked to the nuclear negotiations.
But without some diplomatic cables or intel I’m just guessing here, I don’t think any of us have first hand knowledge.
As the International Court of Justice (aka World Court) is the judicial arm of the UN, I would have no problem admitting the Iranian diplomat contingent upon the ICJ taking him into custody for trial. After all the United States did raise the hostage taking matter before the ICJ.
But I doubt that would be permissible under UN or ICJ procedures.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone summarize why the hostages were taken in the first place? I can understand shutting down a hated nation’s embassy and expelling all its diplomats, but what was gained or sought in holding hostages for over a year?
I’ve skimmed it. But it’s your argument…if you don’t want to back it up with specific cites demonstrating your assertions, well, that’s your look out. It’s unreasonable to think that any nation state would bind itself to a treaty that allows another power to appoint anyone they choose to be ambassador to the UN and that the host nation would simply allow any and all persons diplomatic immunity without a chance to vet them. Sorry, but if you are making that claim then to me extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proofs, and your proofs are ‘Try reading the Treaty’, which means you are handwaving the argument away. which, in turn, means this is just RO on your part and isn’t really a debate at all.
How about this: Obama says Hamid Abutalebi is considered to have committed crimes on U.S. soil because of his actions at the U.S. Embassy in 1979, so even if he’s granted a visa, he’s subject to arrest the moment he arrives in the U.S…
“But we’re prepared to be generous and let bygones be bygones. I will be happy to grant a pardon to Hamid Abutalebi if he asks for one.”
Initially it was just a general anti-American fit that lead to the protesters outside the embassy storming it and taking hostages. The U.S. had supported the Shah, in fact had put him in power. So all the abuses of the Shah’s regime were in the minds of the protesters and they directed that anger at the United States. To some degree I find it fair to dislike the United States as an Iranian that suffered under the Shah’s abuses, but that doesn’t abrogate diplomatic norms either. From there the sticking point became: The United States was housing the deposed Shah, who was wanted for human rights abuses committed during his regime, so the hostage takers wanted to hold the hostages until America would return the Shah. Part of the complication too was the claim by the regime that it had nothing to do with the hostage takers, which no one really believed but which the Iranians used as an excuse throughout the crisis.
This is why I compared it to the United States arresting the Russian diplomats at the Russian Embassy and refusing to return them until Russia turned Snowden over to us.
Also of course, once Khomeini realized how popular the hostage taking was he threw his support behind it. When he had first heard the American Embassy had been taken he basically liked the gesture but said the students needed to be cleared out to avoid an incident, but that changed the moment he realized it was going to stir up massive nationalist fervor in Iran.
Khomeini and his theocratic tendencies weren’t really as popular in Iran as many would think, and most likely Iran was heading for a more moderate (compared to what it has) constitution, but Khomeini was able to use the age old fires of nationalism linked with the hostage taking to get a huge swell of support. He has been quoted as saying as much, that the hostages facilitated his version of the constitution passing a key referendum. So once Khomeini recognized how valuable the hostages were for his domestic popularity it made a great deal of sense to hold them for as long as he did.
I believe they wanted the US to send the Shah back. Also, to throw their weight around and show that the new regime was not afraid to defy the Great Satan.
Actually there was quite a bit of fact and logic based discussion along with the sneering and personal remarks which weren’t entirely unwarranted but I see your point. However, don’t think ignorance hasn’t been fought, I’ve learned a thing or two.
The ICJ doesn’t conduct criminal trials. It tries disputes between states rather than individuals. You are thinking of the International Criminal Court, and the US is not a signatory to the founding treaty of the ICC and doesn’t recognize its jurisdiction.
From an American perspective, that’s true. From an outside perspective, it’s somewhat bizarre that the US head of state cannot negotiate a treaty with any guarantee that the US will actually ratify it.
I don’t know the laws of other countries but I wouldn’t want one man having sole authority to sign a document that binds 310m people in perpetuity. I think legislative approval is a good thing, and I’d be highly questionable of any country’s laws which let the Head of State sign treaties with no check on that power from the legislature. Since most countries allow treaties to trump regular law (this is the case in the United States) I could even see where this would basically make the HoS near dictatorial in power.
To me the only real problem we have is ratified treaties still aren’t anything but paper without enacting legislation, which has to be regular legislation passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. The SCOTUS has even said there is no way to compel the Congress to enact said legislation even though they arguably have a responsibility to do so once the treaty is ratified. That is why all treaties the United States negotiates should be self-enacted, and I believe many of the more recent ones have been.
Treaties only “trump regular law” to the extent that the regular laws are state laws or federal laws made earlier in time. Congress is always free to act in derogation of US treaty obligations.
The US ousted Iran’s rightful government and put in a stooge for a few decades, they kidnap our guys and hold them hostage for a year. We should just forgive and forget, what they did was a pretty justified response to what we did.
Actually it isn’t. Diplomats are supposed to be inviolate even during times of war. Otherwise how can you safely negotiate a peace? That’s like saying since we shot Yamamoto, the Japanese should have shot U.S. diplomatic delegations to Japan. The problem with that is if you shoot all the diplomats how do you ever negotiate a peace?
If we were willing to negotiate a normalization of relations with Iran, as part of that negotiation I could see a full amnesty and acceptance of anyone who was involved in the hostage taking by the United States. Otherwise I see no point to it.