The diplomats weren’t harmed, and more importantly they weren’t taken hostage by the Iranian government (no matter that the hostage takers may have been ideologically similar to the factions that eventually formed the government.)
They weren’t taken hostage by the government but the hostage takers were loyal to Khomeini and would have (and did) release the hostages when the government said it was time to do so.
Anyway, we’re talking about forgiving one of the hostage takers, so in that sense it’s not relevant if they were taken by the government or not. The point about treatment of diplomats definitely stands, I wouldn’t want private American citizens attacking German diplomats during WWII either.
Fair enough, but we’re still talking about Iran’s UN ambassador. If we withdrew from the UN in protest that would be one thing, but instead we are misusing our authority as the UN HQ host.
I’m personally of the mind that taking over a country’s government sorta makes you the bad guy in the part. We in the US are used to being untouchable for our transgressions, so Iran’s not going to bomb us or anything like that. I tend to look at things from how we would feel if it happened to us. If Iran ousted the president and installed a mullah for a few years, we’d be pretty pissed too. There’s no reason for us to get off the hook by taking over their government and then negotiating.
As for shooting diplomats, let’s say we shot theirs. Then they get to shoot ours. After that, we’re even, so negotiations can begin.
Iran can appoint a different UN ambassador, one who wasn’t involved in the embassy takeover. What’s the problem with that? Diplomats get PNG’d all the time (Usually for spying) and all countries do it. This isn’t that big a deal.
PNGed by their mission, not by a country that just happens to be where their missions are located.
Actually, that’s exactly what PNG means. The host country declares you PNG and kicks you out. You don’t declare your own people PNG.
Mission = receiving country. He is not the ambassador to the US.
No, that’s the point. You aren’t supposed to shoot diplomats because that destroys any opportunity at meaningful dialogue. There’s a reason it’s been thirty years before we’ve been able to have meaningful negotiations with the Iranians and that’s entirely because of their treatment of our diplomats.
Whether or not we were the bad guy in the 1950s is irrelevant, especially since the diplomats who were actually there in Tehran were by and large trying to work to have as normal a relationship with the new regime as possible. Aside from the spies who are inside any embassy, the rest of the Americans in that embassy were the good guys; not the cloak and daggers guys from the 50s who ousted Mossadegh.
What I’m pointing out is there is a difference between targeting another country’s leader and targeting its diplomats. During a war most view it as pretty legitimate to try and take out the other guy’s leader, but not its diplomats. Primarily because those diplomats are basically the only way the war can ever end, so it makes little rational sense to shoot them.
Now, we were not at war with Iran, which makes our ousting Mossadegh an immoral action that Iranians are definitely correct in being pissed at. However, that still doesn’t justify targeting diplomats.
But in this unique case, we have to issue him a visa, so to me it’s irrelevant that he’s ambassador to the United Nations. We shouldn’t extend diplomatic protection under any circumstances to persons who violate it.
Although I did point out earlier the one thing that sort of undermines a lot of this is we’ve actually given this particular Iranian a visa before, and he also was (apparently) only a translator/negotiator for the hostage takers which to my mind makes him different than the ones who stormed the building and performed the mock executions.
You seem to be a retard. I notice no sign of shame.
If we don’t want to host UN diplomats, we ought to request that they move UNHQ. Hell, we named John Bolton our UN ambassador. I’m pretty sure whatever moral high ground exists in this dispute is not occupied by us.
Right, this is a unique case. And certainly no other country is going to refuse admittance to a UN ambassador, because no other country has a UN. This decision doesn’t hinder the UN or Iran. Iran can simply appoint another ambassador. And they can be adult about it, and not make an appointment whose only purpose was to tweak the nose of the UN’s host country.
What business is it of ours why they appointed him?
It isn’t. They can appoint whoever they want. But we don’t have to grant that person entry. Since we are not granting this guy entry, they will have to appoint someone else.
Because the US retains the ultimate right to determine who comes onto our soil. We host the UN, we don’t grant the UN sovereign control over parts of Manhattan. There are consequences of exerting our sovereign rights but if and when that causes the UN to pick up roots and move somewhere else we’ll deal with it then.
I don’t think this is something entered into lightly, as we’ve granted visas to lots of objectionable individuals, and the US clearly doesn’t have clean hands by any stretch of the imagination. But until the US gives up sovereignty over the UN buildings, granting visas remain under US control. That was made clear when the treaty was signed.
Does the Netherlands retain control of who gets visas to visit the International Court of Justice? Has it ever been an issue?
I have no problem with it. His appointment is insulting.
I still have a bet of testosterone poisoning over our embassy staff being held hostage for years.
Well, that’s kind of my point: this is the sort of thing that should make the UN pick up and move. We haven’t indicted this guy for anything. He’s been here a half-dozen times before. We just got huffy because he’s an ambassador now. Our only reservation at the time we acceded to the UN establishing treaty was the right to refuse entry to security risks, and as far as I can tell the State Department has not deemed him such.
Good question about the Netherlands. As far as I can tell, it’s never come up.
That seems pretty classy to me.
From your lips to God’s ears. I hear Geneva is a lovely town.