White House denies visa to Iran's pick for UN ambassador

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Far as Im concerned I back the US on this.


It there country so up to them who gets visa or doesn't.

And Iran has the same right likewise.

pheonix358


The UN should pack its bags and find another country to set up its base of operations.

I have always wondered why the USA, Switzerland would be my first choice.

crazyewok

pheonix358


The UN should pack its bags and find another country to set up its base of operations.

I have always wondered why the USA, Switzerland would be my first choice.

I agree. Switzerland can pay what America pays and host the UN. I am all for that.

reply to post by crazyewok


The United Nations in New York is the headquarters.

There are 4 satellite buildings, with one being in Geneva. The UN presence there is expansive and only the New York HQ is bigger.

XcathdraThat is not what is happening with Iran.

Canada send ambassador to S. Africa -

Federated states want it stopped because the ambassador was involved in atrocities in Micronesia. Why should Micronesia be able to block the ambassadors appointment when that appointment does not involve Micronesia.

Its cool though.. not trying to be difficult or anything like that. The action just makes no sense to me..
You are the correct my analogy is not dead on, so I will correct it.

Canadian ambassador was involved in atrocitied committed in SA. Canada appoints the ambassador to be their voice to the African Union which is based in SA (for the example).

SA has every right to be offended, and Canada should know better.

ETA: Now if this diplomat and Iran both renounce the group that did this, renounce these tactics, and he regrets his role, then I am also all for the US to reconsider.

OccamsRazor04

LightningStrikesHere

OccamsRazor04

Xcathdra

OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.

Let me try it this way..

Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.


I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.

IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?

If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.

Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.

Ohh please dude ,get over your self already !

When did this become about me? Why are you trying to derail your own thread?

what's the big deal ? I shall i point out all the criminals within our own government? and the crimes against humanity? and your worried about this guy who was Not directly involved in a hostage situation in his home country years ago ?

There are lots of murderers, so should we forget about rapists? What do criminals in our government have to do with anything on topic? Nothing? Thought so. As far as being worried, where did I say I was worried? He was engaged in kidnapping and hostage taking against Country X, Country X denied him a visa to enter their country .. seems right to me.

Get real !

As opposed to being fake? Maybe like your fake outrage about a situation which you are using to launch a thinly vieled attack?

You don't know the all circumstances behind
the hostage situation in Iran . Nor do i ,and because of that i am open minded about this situation and his status .

So you admit you have no clue what he did, but you are angry he was denied a visa? Fake is right I guess ...

edit on 12-4-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

Angry hardly , disappointed that the US can't handle things diplomatically ,and wants to play an immature game .

I just want to understand why? do you really believe hos visa was denied over his "supposed past" NAT!!! i think the rabbit hole goes deeper than that...

US does not want to sit down at the UN with IRAN ,that's obvious !

guess we will never progress as a nation with that type of mindset eh? You can relate right?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I think the disconnect is the status of the UN. While it is located in the US, the UN is their own entity. The visa only affects the persons ability to enter the US. This is a diplomatic exchange between Iran and the United Nations.

From Wiki -

Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.[5]

LightningStrikesHere
US does not want to sit down at the UN with IRAN ,that's obvious !

With all due respect Iranian Ambassadors as well as their head of state have no issues entering the US for UN functions. This action, as far as I am aware, is a first.

crazyewok
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Far as Im concerned I back the US on this.


It there country so up to them who gets visa or doesn't.

And Iran has the same right likewise.

I don't disagree with you on the visa rights .
But for the sake of US/Iran relations ,why not grant the visa ? I just don't get it really..theirs more to the picture

Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I think the disconnect is the status of the UN. While it is located in the US, the UN is their own entity. The visa only affects the persons ability to enter the US. This is a diplomatic exchange between Iran and the United Nations.

From Wiki -

Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.[5]

LightningStrikesHere
US does not want to sit down at the UN with IRAN ,that's obvious !

With all due respect Iranian Ambassadors as well as their head of state have no issues entering the US for UN functions. This action, as far as I am aware, is a first.

edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Interesting thanks for this info .

LightningStrikesHereAngry hardly , disappointed that the US can't handle things diplomatically ,and wants to play an immature game .

I just want to understand why? do you really believe hos visa was denied over his "supposed past" NAT!!! i think the rabbit hole goes deeper than that...

US does not want to sit down at the UN with IRAN ,that's obvious !

guess we will never progress as a nation with that type of mindset eh? You can relate right?

So you don't disagree they have cause to deny him a visa, you simply make up reasons why it's bad.

Maybe .. GASP .. Iran is the one playing games? Feel free to keep on jumping to unsubstantiated delusions.

Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I think the disconnect is the status of the UN. While it is located in the US, the UN is their own entity. The visa only affects the persons ability to enter the US. This is a diplomatic exchange between Iran and the United Nations.

From Wiki -

Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.[5]

Yes, but he has to first enter the US, before he can enter the UN. If they can find some way to teleport directly into the UN building the US has no standing. Since they can't, he still needs to enter the US and needs a US visa.

LightningStrikesHere
US does not want to sit down at the UN with IRAN ,that's obvious !

With all due respect Iranian Ambassadors as well as their head of state have no issues entering the US for UN functions. This action, as far as I am aware, is a first.

edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

People will believe what fits their view of the world.

Xcathdra
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

A very very bad response by the US.

This guy, regardless of what he did or did not do in the past, was chosen as the Ambassador to the UN. If the US and Iran had diplomatic relations, and this guy was chosen as the Iranian Ambassador to the US, then I could see a valid rejection.

Since its for the UN I don't think the US should meddle with it.

** This is what I get when I read the op and then click the reply button - The post above making the same points **

Sorry bout that.

The other positive is pheonix358 and I actually agree on the topic. There maybe hope after all.

edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

this is first time your post actually makes sense.

refreshingly surprising I must say.

as for the topic.

USA can do whatever they want, they are still on the top of the world but the decision to deny visa is a bad move.

demusthis is first time your post actually makes sense.

refreshingly surprising I must say.

as for the topic.

USA can do whatever they want, they are still on the top of the world but the decision to deny visa is a bad move.

This has nothing to do with who is on top of the world. If Iran was on top of the world I would approve of this.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Right but then we come back around to the fact the UN is its own entity, separate from the US. The Iranian Ambassador is stationed to the UN. This entire exchange is solely between the UN and Iran.

There is absolutely nothing worse than playing politics when it comes to diplomatic relations. We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran and when the administration pulls a stunt like this it only causes further distance.

I get it.. People don't like the guy because of what he did. It is still no reason to deny a VISA when it involves diplomatic representation. The charter / goal of the UN is to facilitate exchanges of ideas / resolutions / foster better relations. I don't think we should be playing politics with this issue.

What does it say when the US constantly pushes issues with other countries to the UN because that's where it belongs only to have the very same administration shut the door.

The US should take one in the teeth and allow the ambassador access. If needed we could revisit the issue down the road. However, it still irritates me nothing was done prior to resolve this situation. Why bring it up now?

reply to post by demus


I would imagine we (you and the others I spar with in the Ukraine threads) have more in common than not in common. We only see each others position in relation to Ukraine. To narrow of a window to adequately form an opinion about others.

just my 2 cents.

Ironic now that I think about it. The one thread dealing with the UN and we are of the same mindset. I wish the UN would work like that on a daily basis.

Eric Shawn ‏@EricShawnonFox · 3m
#UN meeting on Iran's Ambassador now underway. Tehran wants panel to overturn U.S. move blocking him. @Foxnews Watch: http://(link tracking not allowed)/1lBgGXG