US refuses visa for Iran's UN envoy

[mr friendly guy]

You answered your own question in a way Mr. Friendly Guy. Ill elaborate later on when i'm on a laptop and not a phone.

Truth be told, I didn't realise the IMF and the World Bank was affiliated with the UN. But leaving those 2 aside, I consider the WHO an important organisation and I am not sure if many NGOs can coordinate as well as one central organisation. I am also not sure any NGO can do what the IAEA does. I just can't imagine a country agreeing to let an NGO inspect their nuclear plants. It just doesn't have the "officialness" that a UN agency has.

Given that some countries distrust NGOs (a case of small numbers ruining it for all) I would have thought a UN based agency would have more clout since most nations are members of the UN, thus they get a say.

But look, I am interested in your reply.

[Patroklos]

Anyway, I'd have though that barring diplomats passage to UN is a big no-no in international law, plus I thought it was supposed to be the president's job to oversee foreign affairs, not congress. Did something change when I wasn't looking?

Congress has always had quite extensive powers when it comes to foreign affairs, so nothing changed. The President also has quite extensive and more powers in that regard. The way to think of it is the President has the front end, Congress the tail (think treaty ratification, obviously declarations of war). Congress can be on the front end to, such as the ban on cooperation with the Chinese space program and military sales restrictions/approval.

[Irbis]

Honestly this might be a good idea just for the sake of clearing the air. Putting the UN building in New York made a lot of sense in the post-WWII context, where the UN was supposed to be the... for lack of a better term the successor state to the 'grand alliance' that won the war. Since the US was a major member of that alliance, it was sort of logical.*

Actually, it was put there because USA promised to make it available for any and all. More on the situation below, I'll just say the one responsible for all this is our usual titan of intellect, Ted Cruz. Raise hand who is surprised.

Obama's nuclear dilemma

The latest obstacle to President Obama’s plan for a nuclear deal with Iran is fast-moving legislation to bar Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations from entering the United States.

The House is taking up the bill, after the Senate overwhelmingly approved it Monday, and backers promise to send it to Obama in short order.

That will set up a political quandary for the White House.

Vetoing the legislation seems politically unthinkable.

The measure’s sponsors include Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and it is meant to punish Tehran’s selection of Hamid Abutalebi as its U.N. envoy; Abutalebi has ties to the student group that held Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Iran for 444 days. The bill passed in a unanimous voice vote.

Yet, the controversy comes at a fragile time in the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, a pillar of Obama’s second-term foreign policy.

The rejection of an Iranian diplomat could be interpreted not just as a slight, but evidence the United States is willing to renege on an international agreement due to domestic political pressure, something that could make it tougher to ink the deal.

It could also make life difficult for Obama with the U.N.

Diplomats to the United Nations have special rights that go beyond diplomats to Washington.

Prohibiting Abutalebi’s entry would violate a 1947 treaty that obligates the United States to grant entry visas to the representatives of U.N. member states, which was signed as part of the bid to attract the permanent headquarters to New York. It would be sure to draw protest from the international body.

“I think, clearly, the president will be in a very difficult spot,” said Brian Atwood, a professor at the University of Minnesota who served as assistant secretary of State for congressional relations during the hostage crisis.

The White House is hoping Iran simply withdraws the envoy’s name, something that would allow Obama to avoid action.

White House press secretary Jay Carney pointed out the Senate legislation on Tuesday and said the administration had informed Tehran the selection “is not viable.”

Carney would not explicitly say whether the president would sign the legislation, but the tough language suggested he would. Asked to clarify, Carney said that “not viable” was “diplomatic jargon” that could “mean what you want it to mean.”

Iran on Tuesday looked as if it would stand by its man.

“In our viewpoint, the ambassador who has been introduced is qualified for the position and has had important diplomatic posts in European countries and Australia, and has had a good, effective and positive performance during his past [diplomatic] missions,” Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham told reporters, according to The Guardian. There are opponents of the deal in both countries who would like to see it stopped in its tracks, and who could use the fight over Abutalebi to meet that objective.

Jeff Laurenti, the former executive director of the United Nations Association of the United States, said rejecting the envoy would allow hard-liners in Tehran to argue the U.S. can’t be trusted to meet the terms of a nuclear deal.

“Cynics might say this is why some of the people in Congress who oppose the deal have pursued this legislation,” Laurenti said.

Although Cruz and Schumer have described Abutalebi, a close adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, as a major co-conspirator in the embassy hostage plot, Abutalebi has downplayed his role. He claims he only served as a translator and negotiator on behalf of the group Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line, which occupied the embassy.

“Anybody Iran picks may come under a very close scrutiny because of the nuclear negotiations,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst for the Rand Corp.

The Senate legislation, which would deny a visa to “any representative to the United Nations who has engaged in espionage activities against the United States, poses a threat to United States national security interests or has engaged in a terrorist activity against the United States,” would also open up other legal and diplomatic questions.

It’s not the first time the hostage crisis has caused a diplomatic flare-up over travel visas.

In 2005, Iran applied for a visa for then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was accused of participating in the embassy takeover. The Department of Homeland Security initially determined Ahmadinejad was ineligible to receive a visa, before the State Department overturned that decision months later.

In 1988, the U.S. refused to provide Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a visa to speak at the General Assembly, prompting the U.N. to move its meeting to Geneva.

The U.N. passed a resolution 154-2-1 denouncing the U.S. decision, with only the U.S., Israel and the United Kingdom not voting in favor.

Congress also passed an anti-terrorism law in 1987 intended to bar the Palestine Liberation Organization from operating its offices at the United Nations. Then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani attempted to use the law to force the Palestinians to abandon their mission, but a federal judge ruled against the government, citing the U.N. Headquarters Agreement.

So, looks like third time's the charm. It's sad how last two times someone was brave enough to say 'no' to political ineptitude, but no one is now. Because TERRORISM!

You might ask the same question of Iran, who sees fit to send a diplomat to U.S. soil whose credentials seemingly involve aiding a "student" group in taking international diplomats hostage. It's arguably a provocative gesture on both sides.

One, said diplomat served before in Australia, the European Union, Belgium, and Italy, with no one ever giving him problems. He isn't just some random guy, he is genuinely one of Iran's most experienced people.

Two, in his own words (and of witnesses) his only involvement was being an auxiliary translator late in the event. The accusers failed to provide any proof for their claims. As it is, it just looks like Cruz trying to hijack foreign affairs, Yigal Amir style.

Three, even if he was taking hostages personally, it was what, 35 years ago? It's longer than wast majority of world's countries gives as highest prison sentence, it's much longer than statute of limitations for even worst crimes, too. Blaming him now is just petty.

Four, seeing that, you know, Iranian revolution won, I'd expect finding anyone who was not in some way distinguished during it in Iran's governing elite to be extremely hard. I am almost sure Cruz can just turn around and accuse next guy Iran sends of pretty much the same thing.

Five, finally, it's not like Iranian students back then weren't kinda justified in their actions, unless we forget about whole dictatorship, oppressive tyranny, secret police, lack of perspectives, disappearing of political enemies, and similar stuff. Maybe there wouldn't be any issue with the embassy if it didn't coup government before, you know.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I find it amusing that Obama is hoping that Iran withdraws this guy so he doesn't have to make a choice between telling Congress to shove it or breaking a signed treaty. What a guy.

Also, I feel slightly embarassed that the UK didn't vote in favour of the condemning resolution thing at the UN.

[Highlord Laan]

We have a treaty that says he can be here. Congress can fucking shove it. Too bad we've never had a president with the balls to go on live TV and call the little shits out like that.

"We have a treaty. Shut up."
"But we voted!"
"Again. Shut up."

What the fuck are they going to do, get in the way of legislation? Not back his next presidential campaign? Go full retard and try to pull us out of the UN entirely? Fuck 'em. Veto it, go on national TV, call them out, then shove the bill down the throat of the first piece of congressional shit to open his mouth in protest.

[Patroklos]

Is there anything that states a previously approved treaty has supremacy over a newer law? Treaties are the law of the land due to Congressional approval, Congress changes things all the time without repealing the old stuff. I am genuinely curious.

[RogueIce]

Is there anything that states a previously approved treaty has supremacy over a newer law? Treaties are the law of the land due to Congressional approval, Congress changes things all the time without repealing the old stuff. I am genuinely curious.

According to this article (yes Wikipedia, blow me) it appears the Supreme Court held that they don't hold a special place above other Federal law, so yes Congress can, presumably, pass this law which, in effect "modifies" that treaty so far as US law is concerned.

If you want information from a more official source, Wikipedia's Treaty Clause article which says, "Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law," cites this document which is a report about Treaties and the US Senate prepared by the Congressional Research Service in 2001. Have fun digging through all 435 pages of that, though.

[Thanas]

Too bad it is a recognized principle of international law that what a state does internally shall not reflect on the validity of the treaty. So the treaty still stands unless the representative of the US (which would be the President, secretary of state or whoever congress appoints) notifies all other signatories that the US wishes to renegotiate the treaty or withdraw from it.

Also, Rogue, do read the documents you submit. Heck, the first few pages already explain that:

Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international
and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding
on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically,
treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent
in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution
calls ‘‘the supreme Law of the Land.’’
However, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the
United States and in international law. Under international law, a
‘‘treaty’’ is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the
United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that
is made ‘‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate’’ (Article
II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements
not submitted to the Senate are known as ‘‘executive agreements’’
in the United States, but they are considered treaties and
therefore binding under international law.
For various reasons, Presidents have increasingly concluded executive
agreements. Many agreements are previously authorized or
specifically approved by legislation, and such ‘‘congressionalexecutive’’
or statutory agreements have been treated almost interchangeably
with treaties in several important court cases. Others,
often referred to as ‘‘sole executive agreements,’’ are made pursuant
to inherent powers claimed by the President under Article II
of the Constitution. Neither the Senate nor the Congress as a
whole is involved in concluding sole executive agreements, and
their status in domestic law is not fully resolved.

Modification, extension, suspension, or termination 15
Modifying and extending an international agreement amount to
the making of a new agreement that should be done by the same
method as the original agreement. For treaties, this means with
the advice and consent of the Senate. Practice on termination, however,
has not been consistent.
(1) Modification.—At the international level, treaties are amended
by agreement of the parties or in accordance with their terms.
In the United States, amendments to treaties are ordinarily submitted
to the Senate for its advice and consent, unless the treaty
provides for modification in some other way. Less formal modifications
have been made by executive agreements or decisions.
(2) Extension.—An agreement to extend an existing international
agreement is considered a new agreement, and ordinarily would be
accomplished in the same fashion as the original, with an extension
of a treaty submitted to the Senate.
(3) Suspension.—The President conveys notice of suspension of a
treaty and makes the determination that would justify suspension,
such as a fundamental change in circumstances or material breach
of a treaty by another party.
(4) Termination.—At the international level, treaties often contain
provisions regarding duration and the method of termination,
or nations may terminate treaties by mutual consent. Grounds for
termination include violation of the agreement, but violation does
not automatically terminate a treaty.

Domestically, the Constitution does not prescribe the process for
the United States to terminate a treaty, and the process continues
to be controversial. Treaties have been terminated in a variety of
ways, including by the President following a joint resolution of
Congress, by the President following action by the Senate, by the
President and with subsequent congressional or Senate approval,
and by the President alone.

I don't see anything within the document to support the view that the US congress can just pass a law and then they can do as they please.

In fact, the document says the exact opposite:

Finally, treaties and executive agreements generally may both be
superseded by an act of Congress in so far as their domestic consequences
are concerned. However, legislation alone does not affect
the international obligation of the United States under a treaty
or executive agreement.

[RogueIce]

Is this a violation of international law? It absolutely is.

But the way I parsed Patroklos' question was if it could be considered a violation of US law. In which case, is it a "domestic consequence" to give somebody what is, in effect, diplomatic immunity within the United States even if we don't want said person in the country, much less with the status of a diplomat? In which case it seems that Congress can legislate on that, even if, as my snippet from Wikipedia states, doing so is a violation of international law.

Although that document, from the intro I read, mainly cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties so far as international law is concerned, but the US Senate never ratified that so there you go. Which from what I understand means that we shouldn't do anything to "defeat the objective and purpose of the treaty that they have signed" which, again, makes this a rather clear violation of international law. But if the Senate never ratified it, then arguably the VCLT is not "supreme law of the land" insofar as US law is concerned and we're back to that whole mess.

So yeah, is it a violation of international law? Yes. Is it a violation of US law? Debatable. Which takes precedence? Well if that last bit in the article Irbis posted is an indication, if this passes and goes to court there's a good chance a federal judge will strike it down in favor of the UN Headquarters Agreement, as they did in the PLO matter. But that is, as ever, a lengthy process. Still, it might be useful if it prompts the Supreme Court to make a more modern ruling on the matter, since those cases from the Wikipedia article I linked were from the 19th century. So there's that.

Basically I'm not trying to say it's not a violation of international law, but whether it's against US law and the Constitution. That one seems to be slightly murkier.

[Zwinmar]

The U.S. 'never' would break a treaty. /sarcasm
Why anyone actually trusts trust us to keep one is amazing.

[K. A. Pital]

The U.S. 'never' would break a treaty. /sarcasm
Why anyone actually trusts trust us to keep one is amazing.

Who does? It really seems that none of the countries in the world - neither among the aspiring powers, nor among the weaker US allies that count on it for protection - are very happy with the way USA keeps agreements.