10
   

Where does the US(Obama) get OFF Denying Countries UN Ambassadors Access To UN?

 
 
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:20 pm
Quote:
He is a veteran diplomat who has served as Iran's ambassador to Australia, Belgium, Italy and the European Union. He has also held high-profile posts in the Iranian Foreign Ministry. He currently works in the political affairs office of President Hassan Rouhani and is believed to be close to the Iranian leader, who is widely viewed as a moderate with a reformist agenda.
In an interview with Iranian media, Aboutalebi said he served as translator and negotiator, but denied taking part in the initial occupation of the embassy.
The choice of Aboutalebi could complicate President Barack Obama's efforts to re-engage with Tehran after the election of Rouhani and negotiate a comprehensive agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program with five other world powers.
With no formal relations between the United States and Iran, the Iranian mission to the United Nations is Tehran's only diplomatic operation in the U.S. and has played a role in facilitating unofficial exchanges of messages between the two nations.
The step is unusual, given that the United States is obligated to grant entry visas to representatives of U.N. member states in accordance with a 1947 agreement signed with the world body.
Last year, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir decided not to attend the U.N. General Assembly when the State Department failed to respond to his visa application. The International Criminal Court has issued warrants for Bashir's arrest and referral for trial in The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity. Although the United States is not a party to the court, the ICC has asked the U.S. to surrender him if he enters American territory.
Even if the United States granted Aboutalebi a visa, he would not be free to move about the country. As a representative of a country listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department, Aboutalebi would be confined to a radius of 25 miles from Manhattan, just as diplomats from North Korea and Syria are.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/11/politics/us-iran-ambassador-visa/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This can not be allowed to stand. The US has been granted the honor of hosting the UN, but if it will not act with honor it should be moved.
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
I agree that this is beyond absurd although I'd put a lot more blame on Congress for trying to score political points. I'm amazed that not one Senator or Congressman had the guts to say this is wrong. This guy is being attacked 35 years after the fact for something he did as a college student. If we are going to ban every person who supported the students during the hostage crisis, we won't have any Iranians over 50 to talk to. This guy has been in the US before as have several hostage takers. We've let mass murderers come to the UN. I think this is all payback for Obama's smackdown of the Iran sanctions proposal a couple of months ago.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
The President is accountable to you, the voter.

So actually, it is your fault.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:33 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I'd put a lot more blame on Congress for trying to score political points.


Congress does not put words into Obama's mouth. We are seeing the price that the UN pays for not doing anything about previous outrageous US acts, for instance not paying its dues in full and ontime. If the Chinese are on the ball they will offer to host, and will promise that they will never pull this BS.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:34 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The President is accountable to you, the voter.

So actually, it is your fault.

this is being done under my name by my representative, and I am expressing my outrage.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 02:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Congress does not put words into Obama's mouth.

True. The President could simply issue the Visa and ignore Congress. That would work as well.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 03:05 pm
I'm ok with the UN moving. Maybe rotate it through the different continents every 10 years, or so.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 03:54 pm
I guess this is a case of might equals right. I think, and hope, that we will concede that the diplomat has the right to come in.

I think that the UN in NYC is a big asset to the city and the nation. I would hate to see it go elsewhere.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:34 pm
@Advocate,
Me too, on both of those. Although if the UN did move as JPB was saying, say every ten years, I could see that would be fair. On the other hand, it's hard enough to move a household across the US; I can imagine all sorts of complications.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 12:49 pm
Quote:
This can not be allowed to stand. The US has been granted the honor of hosting the UN, but if it will not act with honor it should be moved.


There have been discussions about relocating the HQ several times over the past years. It's never going to happen. The delegates love living in NYC with diplomatic immunity.

Even Aboutalebi wouldn't say that his only involvement in the hostage taking was limited to his "support" as a college student. He was there in the embassy, although he has the temerity to insist he was only a translator.

By the way it was the Administration, not Congress, that refused to issue Aboutalebi a visa.

And if anyone is assuming it was done so because of pressure from Republicans in congress, since when have those Republicans been able to pressure this president into doing anything he didn't want to?

Maybe it was the president's supporters in congress

Quote:
"This man has no place in the diplomatic process," Chuck Schumer, a senior Democratic party senator from New York, wrote to the US secretary of state, John Kerry. "Iran's attempt to appoint Mr Aboutalebi is a slap in the face to the Americans that were abducted, and their families. It reveals a disdain for the diplomatic process and we should push back in kind."
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 04:51 am
This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can you imagine the hoo hah had Obama defied Congress and allowed this guy in?

Quote:
Congress passed a bill last week that would allow the US to refuse an ambassadorial selection if the candidate posed a security risk.

Although the bill still requires the signature of the president before it can become law, Congress appears to have succeeded in getting Mr Aboutalebi barred.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27000232

Remember John McCain singing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' on the campaign trail? What about all the condemnation from Israel and the Republicans for entering into peace talks with Iran in the first place?

The hostage crisis still seems to play large in the hearts and minds of a lot of Americans. Compared to the significant development of peace talks, this is pretty small beer, and most ordinary Iranians won't be too bothered if one individual is barred entry to America.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 10:58 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can you imagine the hoo hah had Obama defied Congress and allowed this guy in?
Is that bill even legal? The president should certainly discourage Congress from picking who does and who does not get a visa even if it was legal.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 11:20 am
@hawkeye10,
It's certainly a lot more legal than the invasion of Iraq.

What do you think all the right wing nutjobs would be saying if he'd been given a visa? If nothing else it would be a huge distraction.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 11:30 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
What do you think all the right wing nutjobs would be saying if he'd been given a visa
Were do you get your information? Reports have it that every D voted to deny this visa.
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 11:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The trouble with Schumer's statement is that he knows better than to imply that we were on the side of the angels in the hostage crisis.

We propped up our puppet dictator, the Shah, for self-serving reasons. We even put him in power when we helped depose his predecessor, who was democratically elected . After the Shah was deposed, his enemies warned us not to allow him into the USA, which warning Carter ignored.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 11:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

Even Aboutalebi wouldn't say that his only involvement in the hostage taking was limited to his "support" as a college student. He was there in the embassy, although he has the temerity to insist he was only a translator.


Gee, Finn, you forgot to give the background like Advocate did. That's just not like you to engage in subterfuge and deception.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:


"This man has no place in the diplomatic process," Chuck Schumer, a senior Democratic party senator from New York, wrote to the US secretary of state, John Kerry. "Iran's attempt to appoint Mr Aboutalebi is a slap in the face to the Americans that were abducted, and their families. It reveals a disdain for the diplomatic process and we should push back in kind."



Consider the number of USA war criminals and terrorists that occupy high level US government positions. Remember when Vietnam war criminal Colon Powell spoke at the UN.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:06 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
The trouble with Schumer's statement is

that he is making accusations that he can't prove. The US MIGHT have cause to bar this diplomat from the UN IF we could prove that allowing him the same visa as the North Koreans (must stay with in 25 miles of the UN Complex) is too high a security risk to the USA for us to allow, but the USA has no case so far as I can tell.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The trouble with Schumer's statement is

that he is making accusations that he can't prove. The US MIGHT have cause to bar this diplomat from the UN IF we could prove that allowing him the same visa as the North Koreans (must stay with in 25 miles of the UN Complex) is too high a security risk to the USA for us to allow, but the USA has no case so far as I can tell.


Do you really believe your statement that he would be too high a security risk were he given full access to the country?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:18 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Do you really believe your statement that he would be too high a security risk were he given full access to the country?
I am not claiming that he is a security risk at all, but security risk is the only grounds the US can legally use to bar anyone from the UN. I am pointing out that even the North Koreans are allowed to come, under special restrictions.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where does the US(Obama) get OFF Denying Countries UN Ambassadors Access To UN?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/19/2019 at 02:37:06