US refuses visa for Iran's UN envoy choice Hamid Aboutalebi

[ChoakMyDee]

I love to bash the USA as much as the next guy(for their foreign policy) but they are only doing the right thing here. They have every right to try to protect their citizens which means not letting in potential risks.

Same same when Cat Stevens tried to visit the USA a few years ago. He left the US, became a Muslim and spouted anti US hatred for years. So when he tried to go to the US for a visit they said "<deleted> you Mr. Cat Stevens". And rightly so in the light of the 911 aftermath. What do you expect?

[Jingthing]

Seriously, get real.

If the UN was in Iran and the US was sending an envoy who was involved in seizing THEIR embassy do you think they wouldn't make a stink too?

There's some hypocrisy for you -- seeing this very reasonable US action in such a bad light. This one is on Iran. Naming this guy was blatantly provocative.

[F430murci]

US only banned him. If tables were turned, Iran would say nothing, let him in and lynch him. Candidly, I say keep all those crazy mofos out. Risk not outweigh what little benefit, if any they offer this country. Good riddance.

[F430murci]

Seriously, get real.

If the UN was in Iran and the US was sending an envoy who was involved in seizing THEIR embassy do you think they wouldn't make a stink too?

There's some hypocrisy for you -- seeing this very reasonable US action in such a bad light. This one is on Iran. Naming this guy was blatantly provocative.

There's no hypocrisy. Just some with chips on their shoulders and burning resentments that skews their views. We have the right to keep whoever we want out and it's nonya business if you don't live here and pay taxes here. The same can be said for any other country. It's their business who they let in and refuse access to and that's nonamy business.

[Jingthing]

This is a political topic here.

Mundane Thai visa issues -- see the Thai visa forum.

They aren't related AT ALL.

I don't recall even one "complaint" about being denied a visa to Thailand based on attacking their embassy!

[simple1]

Those of you claiming the US are bad guys in this, I say you are wrong. If Adolf Hitler was being sent to Poland to be any kind of politician or diplomat, do you think even one person would accept this ? An extreme example, yes, granted, but this is what you are saying then US should allow it to happen.

The fact remains this man was involved in crimes against Americans and he has never payed for those crimes. America should hold a grudge and refuse him entry to their borders. Enough of you bleeding heart liberals - let's have some common bloo9dy sense prevail here.

Are you paying attention Thailand ? Terrorists are not allowed to take up diplomatic positions in civilized countries. There are a few in the caretakers ranks. Let's sort this stuff out....Yes off topic maybe but this is a Thailand forum after all...

Hamid Aboutalebi was previously the Iranian Ambassador to Australia, EU, Italy and Belgium and a member of the Iranian delegation to the UN in the 1990's. Seems somewhat odd that now he is being refused entry as the Iranian Ambassador to the US after being the senior Iranian representative in a number of Western countries and the EU. As far as I am aware he has not been accused of any wrong doing in his previous diplomatic roles.

Edited April 12, 2014 by simple1

[F430murci]

Those of you claiming the US are bad guys in this, I say you are wrong. If Adolf Hitler was being sent to Poland to be any kind of politician or diplomat, do you think even one person would accept this ? An extreme example, yes, granted, but this is what you are saying then US should allow it to happen.

The fact remains this man was involved in crimes against Americans and he has never payed for those crimes. America should hold a grudge and refuse him entry to their borders. Enough of you bleeding heart liberals - let's have some common bloo9dy sense prevail here.

Are you paying attention Thailand ? Terrorists are not allowed to take up diplomatic positions in civilized countries. There are a few in the caretakers ranks. Let's sort this stuff out....Yes off topic maybe but this is a Thailand forum after all...

Hamid Aboutalebi was previously the Iranian Ambassador to Australia, EU, Italy and Belgium and a member of the Iranian delegation to the UN in the 1990's. Seems somewhat odd that now he is being refused entry as the Iranian Ambassador to the US after being the senior Iranian representative in a number of Western countries and the EU. As far as I am aware he has not been accused of any wrong doing in his previous diplomatic roles.

Not matter. He lost his privileges here and is not welcome here. That is that.

[Thai at Heart]

You guys don't get it. An ambassador has complete immunity from US law. He can't even get a parking ticket. If he commits a crime, the worst that can happen to him is that he gets deported.

This is on US soil which is sovereign. The US doesn't think much of the UN and has refused to sign all of its most "important" treaties and is therefore not ruled by the UN.

Why the UN building is on US soil, I'll never know, but I wish all of those dodgy ambassadors from dodgy countries were housed in Europe.

Damn it, if the US doesn't want someone on its soil, it has a right to say "no," just as any country should.

Maybe one of you bleeding hearts will invite this Islamic extremist to stay at your house.

Maybe they could look for a newly independent place in need of a bit of an economic boost, close to but not in Europe.

Scotland sounds perfect. They should relocate now.

[Jingthing]

It's not odd. Americans don't want anything to do with any Iranian who was involved in the U.S. embassy siege in Tehran. That was an act of war. There are no formal diplomatic relations between Iran and the USA to this day. See the difference now?

Edited April 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[simple1]

It's not odd. Americans don't want anything to do with any Iranian who was involved in the U.S. embassy siege in Tehran. That was an act of war. There are no formal diplomatic relations between Iran and the USA to this day. See the difference now?

Yes I do, but he was previously a member of the Iranian delgation at the UN that must have required some form of diplomatic visa. I would bet that there are a number of diplomatic visa issued to other countries members at the UN who engage in dialgue with the US representatives at the UN and have a lot darker history of abuses than the proposed Iranian Ambassador; smells of double standards

US has the right to deny a diplomatic visa, but again seems odd at this juncture of US/Iranian negotiations on nuclear security with possible negative ramifications to the US denial of visa. .However, I guess it will all end as a storm in a teacup

Edited April 12, 2014 by simple1

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted.

If I recall correctly, most countries get a free pass on sending people as representatives to the UN for various reasons, but not necessarily those that accepted as an ambassador. Representatives are usually allowed in and have access to the UN for a meetings. They are confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to travel freely throughout the US. I don't believe that those restrictions apply to an ambassador to a country. Since he would have diplomatic privileges, his status would be different. In short, if they want him to speak at the UN or attend meetings, he can do so.

[Thaiready]

The U.S. did the right thing.

If you want to move the U.N. move the U.N.

But don't ask the U.S. to pay for it!

In speaking to many of my friends and business partners back in the US.....if they don't move....their bags are going to get packed for them....people are sick and tired of the UN.

[harrry]

SECTION 11

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation.

SECTION 12

The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

Is what the US agreed to.

It seems it cannot keep its word.

[Credo]

The US is not violating the law. It is not denying Iran's right to have an ambassador, it is just not granting a visa to this particular person.

[geriatrickid]

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Do you really think that "international regulations" trump a country's right to its sovereignty?

Debt? Why should the US pay 26% of the UN's peacekeeping missions when it has only 5% of the world's population? Link

The US may have only 5% of the world's population but it is widely perceived as overtly or covertly supporting or fomenting most of the wars which require these peacekeeping forces.

That's just a regurgitation of long time USA bashing excuses for wrongdoing by other countries.

Are you holding the USA responsible for;

North Korean attacks on South Korea? (China has refused to rein in its puppet state.)

Genocide in the Darfur? (Arab and African nations have aided and abetted the genocide, while the USA has tried to stop it.)

Ongoing turmoil in African nations of Nigeria, Congo and Chad of which the USA is not involved.

Islamic related insurgencies in Russia, China and Thailand of which the USA is not involved.

Syrian civil war of which Russia an Iran have supported the murderous Assad regime.

The USA has provided most of the humanitarian aid for in the very regions where there is nothing but ingratitude for the USA (e.g. Pakistan)

Please try again.

[jamhar]

Why the UN building is on US soil, I'll never know, but I wish all of those dodgy ambassadors from dodgy countries were housed in Europe.

The UN was established in the fall of 1945 I believe. To put it simply, there was no other place to put it at the time.

And like a bad house guest, they use up resources, act prissy

.........

and wont leave!

[geriatrickid]

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

You have neglected to mention that most of the UN members do not want to move. No other country is able to offer the benefits, services, security and subsidies that the USA has been able to provide. Do you really think you would be able to get all of the UN member countries to agree on an alternative location? Ok, maybe one of the Gulf region countries could provide a new home and pay the billions needed for the relocation. However, the countries who pay most of the UN's bills do not want to go to the UAE or Dubai.

look at the embarrassment of the ICAO threats to relocate to Dubai from Montreal 2 years ago. They were throwing money like it was confetti to get ICAO to move. At the end of the day, the counties who mattered decided they preferred access to services, civil rights, basic freedom to move around, a good location was more appealing than an unsustainable fantasy land in sand land.

BTW, in respect to over flight access, are you aware that it is Canada making the call on a great many of those flights? In case you didn't know, Canada is the largest country in the western hemisphere and anyone wanting to use the polar routes has to go through Canada. Flights from the EU get to the USA by flying through Canadian airspace.

No one is forcing the UN to stay in the USA. Russia and China who claim they are super powers can pick up the bill and move the UN to Sochi or Guanxi. Let India the impoverished nation that builds nukes, subsidize a relocation to sweet smelling mumbai. Better yet, how about a relocation to safe Lagos, Nigeria or bustling Dacca Bangladesh.

[chuckd]

SECTION 11

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation.

SECTION 12

The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

Is what the US agreed to.

It seems it cannot keep its word.

This section is applicable for travel within the US.

You have to get in the US first...and that requires a State Department approved visa which the US is not obligated to provide.

It matters not what his previous career posts have been or where they were located. Perhaps he didn't hold any of their citizens hostage for 444 days and ransack one of their embassies. He seems to have done so in the case of the US.

[Thaiready]

SECTION 11

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation. SECTION 12

The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

Is what the US agreed to.

It seems it cannot keep its word.

Word to who.....a bunch of freeloaders.....take you UN and stick-it.

[ABCer]

President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure from the US Congress not to allow him to enter the country.

Obama wanted to let that murdering terrorist sit on the UN. Why not? The only thing factual about that movie I. Frankenstein was the description of the UN. Even Huessini Mubarak was their darling, his entire life, and he used UN money to take over from Anwar Sadat.

Try to compile the list of their "darlings" in the past 30 - 40 years.

Surprisingly you will find on this list some illustrious villains like

Idi Amin, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat and many more thieves and murderers.

There is hardly any murderous conflict on the globe that hasn't got the UN banner over it.

[jamhar]

SECTION 11

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation.

SECTION 12

The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

Is what the US agreed to.

It seems it cannot keep its word.

Harry, I agree with you 100%. The USA isnt deserving of the UN!

I thing you should teach the Americans a lesson by taking it away from the US.

Please dont slam the door on your way out

PS

in summary, Stop b*tching and just leave! Cant you take a hint?

[boomerangutang]

Yet, the US gov't gave a visa to Thaksin, a fugitive from the law, and former overseer/administrator of about 2,000 extrajudicial killings in his messy 'War on Drugs'. Not to excuse the Iranian, but at least he didn't orchestrate the extrajudicial killing of anyone, as far as we know.

[F430murci]

Yet, the US gov't gave a visa to Thaksin, a fugitive from the law, and former overseer/administrator of about 2,000 extrajudicial killings in his messy 'War on Drugs'. Not to excuse the Iranian, but at least he didn't orchestrate the extrajudicial killing of anyone, as far as we know.

Dude, if you cannot see the difference one would be wasting their breathe trying to explain. Some of the examples and attempted corollaries on here are mystifying.

Nevertheless, any country should be able to pick and chose who they want to let in. If you kidnapped or killed US citizens on foreign soil, you come back in only in handcuffs.

[Credo]

It never takes very long for Thaksin to be brought up, regardless of how off-topic it is.

Thaksin presented no threat to the US. This guy has a history of activity against the US and US citizens. Thailand also presents no threat to the US. Iran on the other hand does.

Thaksin went to school in the US and to the best of my knowledge he has always complied with the laws of the US and did not violate his visa status. There was no good reason to deny him entry.

This guy may still be a threat. His country of origin is uncooperative and it just might not be feasible to protect him. There may be a few people who would like to settle a few scores.

It's a political ploy on the part of the Iranian gov't. They know it and so does the US.

[kaveh]

reminds me of first scene of "Star Wars - Episode I" and the dialogues ... the ambassadors for the supreme
chancellor wish to board immediately...The negotiations will be short...

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Yet, the US gov't gave a visa to Thaksin, a fugitive from the law, and former overseer/administrator of about 2,000 extrajudicial killings in his messy 'War on Drugs'. Not to excuse the Iranian, but at least he didn't orchestrate the extrajudicial killing of anyone, as far as we know.

Dude, if you cannot see the difference one would be wasting their breathe trying to explain. Some of the examples and attempted corollaries on here are mystifying.

Nevertheless, any country should be able to pick and chose who they want to let in. If you kidnapped or killed US citizens on foreign soil, you come back in only in handcuffs.

You're good at being contrarian. I can see the difference between a lot of things. No one said they're identical.

The US Imm Service has a stated policy of "No fugitives from the law are permitted entry." That includes people who have been convicted and sentenced to a felony, and who are running from the Law.

The Iranian is neither of those things. I agree the Iranian should be denied a visa. I don't agree that the US should soften its policy because an applicant is filthy rich.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

Stick to the topic, please.

[Genericnic]

I guess Hamid wasn't smart enough to head to Mexico first and then jump the border like the millions of illegals that are in the US without visas.

David

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 15, 2014 by Genericnic