The UN should not be based in New York, a grave mistake

Watch
Zainabahlulbayt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Direct from the BBC's website: "Under international law, the US as the host nation for the UN is obliged to grant visas to states' representatives."

Iran has chosen its ambassador. The UN is a multi-international organisation. Iran needs to be able to take part in talks, and the US have barred Iran effectively from attending the UN meetings because the UN - which SHOULD not be bias towards the US and remain neutrla- is located in the US, and hence the US won't give the iranian ambassador a VISA.

I hate terrorists, i hate the taliban, i hate those who murder and opress. Either upfront like the taliban, or hidden behind deceitful foreign politics and lies like the USA, i.e it's illegal invasion of Iraq.

But that is besides the point. According to international Law, a country may choose whomever it wants as ambassador. The UN have no problems whatsoever with Irans choice.

I accept the US can refuse a VISA to whomever so they wish.

The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country like the US, which bars Iran from participating in peace talks absolutely shatters and mingles UN neutrality with US politics.



(Original post by -TheSpecialOne-)
Always find it funny when people call the US terrorists

Posted from TSR Mobile
These people don't:

PLACE: HIROSHIMA
Event: USA DROPS A NUCLEAR BOMB KILLING COUNTLESS.

Image


USA DRONE STRIKES BREAK DOWN

Image
7
reply
-TheSpecialOne-
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Always find it funny when people call the US terrorists

Posted from TSR Mobile
5
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Lolz. I very rarely agree with the US's heavy handed stance on foreign policy but I find it absolutely laughable that Iran thought it was realistic or appropriate to appoint an ambassador who has compromised another nation's sovereignty and broken international law.

Fair play to the US on telling them to sling their hook and refusing to issue a visa.
1
reply
Zainabahlulbayt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by StretfordEnd)
Lolz. I very rarely agree with the US's heavy handed stance on foreign policy but I find it absolutely laughable that Iran thought it was realistic to appoint an ambassador who has compromised another nation's sovereignty and broken international law.

Fair play to the US on telling them to sling their hook and refusing to issue a visa.
The US were the ones who supported an oppressive SHAH regime in Iran, who were effectively 'puppets' of the US government.

But that is besides the point. According to international Law, a country may choose whomever it wants as ambassador. The UN have no problems whatsoever with Irans choice.

I accept the US can refuse a VISA to whomever so they wish.

The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country like the US, which bars Iran from participating in peace talks absolutely shatters and mingles UN neutrality with US politics.
1
reply
russellsteapot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
I'm fairly sure that direct involvement in an attack on an embassy and holding hostages for over a year would bar someone from entering most countries, not just the United States.
1
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by Zainabahlulbayt)
The US were the ones who supported an oppressive SHAH regime in Iran, who were effectively 'puppets' of the US government.

But that is besides the point. According to international Law, a country may choose whomever it wants as ambassador. The UN have no problems whatsoever with Irans choice.

I accept the US can refuse a VISA to whomever so they wish.

The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country like the US, which bars Iran from participating in peace talks absolutely shatters and mingles UN neutrality with US politics.
Ok then. Where do you suggest the UN should be headquartered?
0
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Zainabahlulbayt)
The US were the ones who supported an oppressive SHAH regime in Iran, who were effectively 'puppets' of the US government.

But that is besides the point. According to international Law, a country may choose whomever it wants as ambassador. The UN have no problems whatsoever with Irans choice.

I accept the US can refuse a VISA to whomever so they wish.

The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country like the US, which bars Iran from participating in peace talks absolutely shatters and mingles UN neutrality with US politics.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what justification the Iranian student revolutionaries had or thought they had; in the first instance they responded to a situation with brute force and in the second instance they violated the immunity of a diplomatic mission - you couldn't get a more obvious breach of the Geneva convention if you tried.

Also, you state that the UN have no problems with Iran's choice - this is not the case. The UN have yet to make any official comment or make their position clear.

Yes, under the UN charter the host nation is generally required to provide a visa unless they can prove a crime has been committed which is not covered by diplomatic immunity. In the case of Dr. Aboutalebi I really don't think this will be too difficult!

Incidentally, which country do you propose replaces the US as a host nation for the UN, one which could always guarantee neutrality? If you find this mystical land of milk and honey I'd suggest we may not even need the UN!
0
reply
TenMileTie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
The Jewish lobby dictates US policy in the Middle East, from the neocon 'thinktanks' advising the invasion of Iraq to the present day determining of the nature of relations with Iran; it's not an unexpected development.
1
reply
Zainabahlulbayt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by russellsteapot)
I'm fairly sure that direct involvement in an attack on an embassy and holding hostages for over a year would bar someone from entering most countries, not just the United States.
1. The U.S had the Shahs puppet regime in Iran.
2. Embassays are stormed world-wide when people protest.
3. Holding hostages is bad ? Wait, let's look at some of the things the US has done:

1. ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq - how many were murdered ?
2. Putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with.
3. Accusing Iran, who allow full inspection of their neuclear facilities of wanting to builda nuclear bomb, when it was infact the USA who dropped a nuclear bomb in Hirosihima, killing how many ?
4. Drone strikes killing so many untold on a regular basis.

While we are at it, lets not forget this:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ir-flight-655/

Iran Flight 655, where the US shot down a plane murdering many many iranians.



My argument is not: The US can't bar a visa.

My argument IS: The UN is a neutral multi international organisation, and according to international law sovreign countries can select any ambassador they wish. The UN being based in the US thus totally destroys the neutrality and the UN HQ should be based else-where.
0
reply
Zainabahlulbayt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
some of my posts aren't showing due to moderation?
0
reply
russellsteapot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Zainabahlulbayt)
....
OK, so I understand that you hate America.

Where do you want to put the UN instead? Just saying "not in the USA" isn't much help unless you have a better idea.
0
reply
Theflyingbarney
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by russellsteapot)
OK, so I understand that you hate America.

Where do you want to put the UN instead? Just saying "not in the USA" isn't much help unless you have a better idea.
Well the only truly independent and neutral land left on the Earth is a remote section of Antarctica that no country has claimed. Which'd be great for turning the UN into some comic-book villian conglomerate.

Alternatively, there's a bit of barren desert between Sudan and Egypt that neither country wants.

So yeah, the options aren't exactly thrilling
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
I assumed that diplomats have immunities and exemptions, one being visas?

Oh well, yeah it seems silly to base the UN in America, but the US pays most of it's funding and until the rest of the world sets aside somewhere for it's sole use or whatever in the middle of the ocean or something, it's sort of at the whim of the host nation's authority to a degree.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Zainabahlulbayt)
The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country
is therefore always going to conflict with this neutrality. Would you prefer to host it not in a country, or just in a country whose bias is more to your liking?

The UN btw is not supposed to be a neutral organisation; it is explicitly an organisation of the allied powers and then victors of the Second World War, of which Iran is not one. Iran is a member on sufferance.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Observatory)
is therefore always going to conflict with this neutrality. Would you prefer to host it not in a country, or just in a country whose bias is more to your liking?

The UN btw is not supposed to be a neutral organisation; it is explicitly an organisation of the allied powers and then victors of the Second World War, of which Iran is not one. Iran is a member on sufferance.
Somewhere like Switzerland would seem to be the best option for now, at least until the UN headquarters can be given its own sovereign enclave.

By the way, you're mistaken about Iran. It doesn't matter how it sided during the war - Iran was one of the original 51 signatories of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, so it has just as much right to be a member as any other of the original members.
1
reply
Zainabahlulbayt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Arbolus)
Somewhere like Switzerland would seem to be the best option for now, at least until the UN headquarters can be given its own sovereign enclave.

By the way, you're mistaken about Iran. It doesn't matter how it sided during the war - Iran was one of the original 51 signatories of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, so it has just as much right to be a member as any other of the original members.
And also as much right to make their own renewable nuclear energy in view of the fact they will run out of oil.

America - actually dropped a nuclear bomb in hiroshima
0
reply
Oldcon1953
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
Myself and probably,( I'm just guessing here), 150-175mil Americans agree with you. You would answer the prayers of many if you would start your own, "club", bar the U.S. from membership, demolish the current building, ( I know many of us would help), so the VERY valuable real estate it is occupying could be put to constructive uses. Then, you could sit around and chat amongst yourselves and be a shining example to the U.S. on how to get the job done. We'll meet you there bright and early Monday morning.
1
reply
OMGWTFBBQ
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
The US actually has an obligation under international law to provide visas for ambassadors to the UN as part of its responsibilities as a host nation.

I think the UN needs to tell America to either back down or it will relocate back to Switzerland.

Or better still, it really ought to be based on an Island somewhere with a small airport and declared an independent sovereign nation in its own right, similar to the Vatican City.
1
reply
NikolaT
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
Or better still, it really ought to be based on an Island somewhere with a small airport and declared an independent sovereign nation in its own right, similar to the Vatican City.
'Breaking news: Terrorists have captured the United Nations'
0
reply
OMGWTFBBQ
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by NikolaT)
'Breaking news: Terrorists have captured the United Nations'
Because the UN doesn't have its own military force already, right?

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...s_peacekeeping
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you consider Adjustment if your grades were higher than you expected?

Yes, I'd look at higher ranking universities than my current choices (131)
43.09%
Yes, I'd look for a course or uni that is a better fit for me (45)
14.8%
No, I'd stick with my current uni choice (122)
40.13%
Something else (let us know in the thread below!) (6)
1.97%

Watched Threads

View All