Iranian foreign minister denied visa to attend UN meeting

[Stevicus]

US denies Iran's Zarif visa to attend UN meeting, official says

• The United States has denied a visa to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that would have allowed him to attend a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York on Thursday, a U.S. official said.
• Under the 1947 U.N. “headquarters agreement,” the United States is generally required to allow access to the United Nations for foreign diplomats.
• But Washington says it can deny visas for “security, terrorism and foreign policy” reasons.

Apparently, this trip had been planned before the recent killing of Soleimani.

Zarif wanted to attend a meeting of the Security Council on Thursday on the topic of upholding the U.N. Charter. The meeting and Zarif’s travel had been planned before the latest flare-up in tensions between Washington and Tehran.

The Security Council meeting would have given Zarif a global spotlight to publicly criticize the United States for killing Soleimani.

Iran’s U.N. envoy, Majid Takht Ravanchi, has described the killing of Soleimani as “an obvious example of State terrorism and, as a criminal act, constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law, including, in particular ... the Charter of the United Nations.”

It's interesting, as I always thought diplomats were allowed to have access to the UN, even if they're from countries with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

The article also mentions that, since July, the diplomats at Iran's UN Mission were severely restricted and confined to a small section of NYC.

Zarif also attended U.N. meetings in April and July. During his July visit, Washington imposed tight travel restrictions on Zarif and diplomats at Iran’s mission to the United Nations, confining them to a small section of New York City.

 

[Harel13]

It's interesting, as I always thought diplomats were allowed to have access to the UN, even if they're from countries with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

Apparently, the visit poses some sort of security risk.

 

[pearl]

It's interesting, as I always thought diplomats were allowed to have access to the UN, even if they're from countries with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

The article also mentions that, since July, the diplomats at Iran's UN Mission were severely restricted and confined to a small section of NYC.

I think you're right, they are to be allowed to attend the UN, but restriction beyond the UN is understandable.

 

[Revoltingest]

US denies Iran's Zarif visa to attend UN meeting, official says


Apparently, this trip had been planned before the recent killing of Soleimani.



It's interesting, as I always thought diplomats were allowed to have access to the UN, even if they're from countries with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

The article also mentions that, since July, the diplomats at Iran's UN Mission were severely restricted and confined to a small section of NYC.

It's all part of a sophisticated plan to achieve peace with Iran.
First, assassinate some of them.
And then refuse to talk to survivors.

 

[Lyndon]

its time to move the UN to a neutral country!!

 

[metis]

It's interesting, as I always thought diplomats were allowed to have access to the UN, even if they're from countries with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

Exactly, but Trump is not a normal president.

 

[Lyndon]

Exactly, but Trump is not a normal president.

no, he's more in the dictator mode!!

 

[HonestJoe]

Apparently, the visit poses some sort of security risk.

To be fair, it probably does. The Iranian minister would be at risk of being assassinated.

 

[columbus]

To be fair, it probably does. The Iranian minister would be at risk of being assassinated.

Trump could shoot somebody in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and not lose any support.
Tom

 

[sun rise]

Apparently, the visit poses some sort of security risk.

BS. Trump wants a shooting war with Iran and is doing this to provoke them.

 

[sun rise]

To be fair, it probably does. The Iranian minister would be at risk of being assassinated.

By Trump's minions.

 

[Revoltingest]

BS. Trump wants a shooting war with Iran and is doing this to provoke them.

I'm sure the move was to prevent a war.

 

[Harel13]

Trump wants a shooting war with Iran and is doing this to provoke them.

@sun rise If you go with this as being the security risk,

The Iranian minister would be at risk of being assassinated

Then wouldn't it supposedly be the reverse? Assuming of course that the supposed risk is to the Iranian entourage (I assumed the risk would to the US, with the Iranians using the visit for Intel-gathering.

 

[Heyo]

@sun rise (I assumed the risk would to the US, with the Iranians using the visit for Intel-gathering.

Another reason why I support Lyndon's proposal to move the UN headquarters to a neutral country. Do you?

 

[Harel13]

Another reason why I support Lyndon's proposal to move the UN headquarters to a neutral country. Do you?

I don't know... I mean, the UN is pretty anti-Israel, so maybe keeping them in the pro-Israel USA is useful...

 

[Heyo]

I don't know... I mean, the UN is pretty anti-Israel, so maybe keeping them in the pro-Israel USA is useful...

Useful for Israel. But for the rest of the world or the UN as an organization? When the host land of the UN is denying participation to any random diplomat, the functioning of the UN is in question. Better move then.

 

[Harel13]

Useful for Israel. But for the rest of the world or the UN as an organization? When the host land of the UN is denying participation to any random diplomat, the functioning of the UN is in question. Better move then.

Maybe. I can't really voice a different opinion because Israel's best interest is my main concern.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe. I can't really voice a different opinion because Israel's best interest is my main concern.

Israel isn't what you'd call "neutral" so it would probably be out of the question for an alternative but I'd trust the Israelis would adhere to to their word to allow entrance to every diplomat if they give it - more than the US at least. But would Switzerland be that worse for Israel than the US?

 

[Harel13]

Israel isn't what you'd call "neutral" so it would probably be out of the question for an alternative but I'd trust the Israelis would adhere to to their word to allow entrance to every diplomat if they give it - more than the US at least. But would Switzerland be that worse for Israel than the US?

Depends if you think that the International Court in Hague is worse than the UN or not...

 

[Heyo]

Depends if you think that the International Court in Hague is worse than the UN or not...

The worst thing bout the ICC is that those countries most in need of it haven't ratified the Rome Statute.