UNITED NATIONS, Apr 15 (IPS) - The United States has rarely, if ever, denied a visa to a head of state seeking to visit the United Nations to address the 193-member General Assembly, the highest policy making body in the organisation.
But it did so last November, prompting Sudan to register a strong protest before the U.N.'s legal committee: a protest that went unsung and unnoticed.3
Hassan Ali, a senior Sudanese diplomat, told delegates, "The democratically-elected president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, had been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the General Assembly because the host country, the United States, had denied him a visa, in violation of the U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement."
Furthermore, he complained, the host country also applied arbitrary pressures on foreign missions, "depending on how close a country's foreign policy is to that of the United States."
"It was a great and deliberate violation of the Headquarters Agreement," he said, also pointing to the closing of bank accounts of foreign missions and diplomats as another violation.
"Those missions have now been without bank accounts for some three years," he added.
The refusal of a visa to the Sudanese president was also a political landmine because al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But does the United States have a right to implicitly act on an ICC ruling when Washington is not a party to the Rome Statute that created the ICC?
"Good question," said John Quigley, professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University.
"As you suggest, the U.S. had no obligations under the Rome Statute," he told IPS.
So the question would not arise of Washington having an obligation that might conflict with the obligation to grant a visa to a representative of a U.N. member state, he added.
It would be harder if the United States were a party to the Rome Statute.
Sudanese President Omer Hassan Al Bashir addresses a ceremony marking the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on Jan. 9, 2009. The refusal of his visa was also a political landmine because al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Credit: UN Photo/Tim McKulka
"Even then, the two obligations might not conflict. That is, the U.S. would have an obligation to let him in. Once he is in, the U.S. would have an obligation to turn him over to the ICC," said Quigley, author of 'The Ruses of War: American Interventionism Since World War II'.
The U.S. decision last week to deny a visa to the Iranian envoy-in-waiting, Hamid Aboutalebi, has been challenged as a violation of the Headquarters Agreement - even though Washington got away scot-free after barring the Sudanese president from the General Assembly last year.
James A. Paul, who served for over 19 years as executive director of the Global Policy Forum, told IPS the U.S. government was in clear violation of international law and practice.
This includes violations of specific international agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and particularly the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, entered into by the U.S. and the U.N. in 1947 and unanimously ratified by Congress.
This particular violation of visa denial is one of many such violations, some of which get lots of attention and some of which don't, he said.
"My guess is that there have been hundreds of cases in which the U.S. has refused entry visas for various reasons. There are also hundreds of other cases of violation of the agreement in other ways," said Paul, who has kept close track of the politics of the United Nations for nearly two decades.
In response to the U.S. refusal to grant a visa to Palestine leader Yassir Arafat in 1988, he said, the General Assembly had to move its meeting to Geneva at huge expense and inconvenience.
"That case made headlines, but most do not," said Paul.
Take, for example, the U.S. refusal to grant an entry visa to a senior Argentine diplomat who had been accredited to participate with the Brazilian team on the U.N. Security Council in 2010.
"Washington took this step presumably because it wanted to block regional coordination on the Council - a totally illegitimate reason," Paul said, adding there was no argument the person involved represented a security threat.
"So I think we can say that Washington believes it can deny visas whenever it chooses to do so and most governments, fearful of negative consequences, remain silent and do not make a fuss," he added.
Quigley told IPS he saw no exception for security, terrorism and foreign policy in the Headquarters Agreement.
The resolutions by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to bar the Iranian envoy, are irrelevant, he said.
"What matters is the text of the Headquarters Agreement. If domestic legislation was adopted that purported to reserve rights to the U.S. that are not expressed in the Headquarters Agreement, the domestic legislation does not allow the U.S. to evade its obligations," said Quigley.
"As I read the legislation adopted by Congress, it gives grounds for denial of a visa, but it is still up to the president to decide the grounds exist, so it is not Congress that is denying a visa to a particular person."
The president should properly regard the Headquarters Agreement as his guide, added Quigley.
The U.S. has accused Aboutalebi of being involved in the 1979 forcible takeover of the U.S. embassy and its diplomatic personnel in Tehran.
But the Iranian says he was only a translator and negotiator between the hostages and the hostage takers - and that he was not even in Tehran when the embassy was physically taken over by a group called the Muslim Students.
Quigley said, "I can see that there might be some validity to the view that the U.S. and Iran should work this out, but at this point the U.S. has denied and does not seem inclined to reconsider."
That being the case, it is the U.N. that is the injured party under the Headquarters Agreement. It should not be up to Iran to take the initiative to take action on the matter, he argued.
Paul told IPS some diplomats face restrictions as to where they can live and where in the U.S. they can travel.
There have been many complaints about U.S. banking restrictions having serious negative consequences for delegations, who sometimes cannot pay their bills as a result.
Finally, of course, there is the scandal of spying on U.N. staff and on delegations.
"When you put all this together, you have a stark picture of disregard for the norms of diplomacy and the letter of international agreements. It is a sad story," he added.
© Inter Press Service (2014) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
Latest News Headlines
Read the latest news stories:
- OPINION: Africans’ Land Rights at Risk as New Agricultural Trend Sweeps Continent Monday, September 01, 2014
- Struggling to Find Water in the Vast Pacific Monday, September 01, 2014
- Arab Region Has World’s Fastest Growing HIV Epidemic Monday, September 01, 2014
- Jordan’s LGBT Community Fears Greater Intolerance Sunday, August 31, 2014
- New Technology Boosts Fisherfolk Security Sunday, August 31, 2014
- Europe’s Two-Time Turnabout on Syria/Iraq Saturday, August 30, 2014
- Will Climate Change Denialism Help the Russian Economy? Saturday, August 30, 2014
- Ban on Nuke Tests OK, But Where's the Ban on Nuke Weapons? Saturday, August 30, 2014
- Growing Calls for Reforms of El Salvador’s Privatised Pension System Friday, August 29, 2014
- SDGs Make Room for Education for Global Citizenship Friday, August 29, 2014