Iran's
Visa Speech To
UN Committee
Leaves It "Seized,"
Cyprus Says
Ask US
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, April
22, updated --
After the UN's
Host Country
Committee met
on
April 22 about
the US denying
entry to
Iran's nominee
for UN
Ambassador,
the
Committee's
chair from
Cyprus told
the press that
several
members spoke
and the
committee
remains
"seized of the
matter."
Inner City
Press asked
him how the US
had justified
its
act in light
of the Host
Country
Agreement. Ask
the Americans,
he
said. But they
did not speak
at the
stakeout.
Now here is
Iran's text of
its speech to
the Committee,
in full:
Statement
by
H.E. Mr.
Gholamhossein
Dehghani
Ambassador and
Charge
d’Affairs
of the Islamic
Republic of
Iran
before
The Committee
on Relations
with the Host
Country
22
April 2014 ,
New York
In
the
Name of God,
the Most
Compassionate,
the Most
Merciful
Mr.
Chairman,
At
the
outset, I
would like to
thank you for
convening this
meeting of
the Committee
today to
consider the
long-debated
issue of entry
visas
to members of
the staff of
Missions which
has
unfortunately
become a
perennial item
on the agenda
of this
Committee. In
the backdrop
of
this
unrelenting
problem, my
delegation
deemed it
necessary to
take
this
opportunity to
share with you
and the
distinguished
Committee
members our
serious
concerns, this
time,
regarding the
denial of the
United States
entry visa to
the designated
Ambassador and
Permanent
Representative
of the Islamic
Republic of
Iran to the
United
Nations.
Let
me begin by
underlining
the unique
responsibility
this Committee
has
in upholding
the
obligations by
the Host
Country
authorities
within
the framework
of
international
law and
especially
under the
Headquarters
Agreement,
which is a
sine qua non
for the normal
functioning of
diplomatic
Missions
accredited to
the United
Nations.
We and other
Member-States,
who refer
their issues
to this
Committee
and
participate in
its meetings,
earnestly
expect that
the concerns
and complaints
raised in this
Committee be
effectively
addressed by
relevant
authorities of
the HostState
in
coordination
with this
Committee.
Mr.
Chairman,
As
the
record of this
Committee
testifies, my
delegation has
appeared
numerous times
before this
Committee
and/or
otherwise
communicated
its concerns
over the issue
of entry visa,
which is the
basic right
of every
Member-State
and imperative
for enabling
them to be
duly
represented in
this
intergovernmental
organization.
Out of a long
list of visa
problems and
excruciating
delays, I
confine myself
to
the current
examples: two
Iranian
diplomats
designated
more than five
months ago to
cover their
functions at
the UN are yet
to receive
their US entry
visas. Another
diplomat, who
was already
posted here
up to 2008,
just received
clearance for
his visa
following a
two year
wait time.
There is
another recent
case in which
the announced
visa
clearance is
rescinded and
our colleague
is told to
wait for yet
another rerun
of the
process.
You
also know that
our visas are
“one-entry”
only and for
each travel
outside the
country, we
and our
families are
required to go
through,
at times, very
long and
unpredictable
process for
obtaining
return
visas. To
mention an
example,
during the
last Summer,
many of my
colleagues and
their families
were deprived
from traveling
home,
because they
received their
visas only
weeks after
schools
reopened.
There are
cases that
visa is not
issued for the
entire family
members
and make it
impossible for
them to move.
Moreover, in
case of a
family
emergency, the
return visa is
always an
impediment in
the way.
This situation
is absurd and
we cannot find
a justifiable
answer for
it. We have
continuously
communicated
with the US
Mission and
also
requested your
intervention,
so that visas
for Iranian
officials
participating
in formal UN
meetings as
well as those
staff of this
Mission to be
issued in
time. It is
very
regrettable
and disturbing
that this
situation
continues
unabated and
the solid
obligations of
the Host
country are
ignored
unjustifiably.
I ask you, Mr.
Chairman,
and other
distinguished
members: those
who negotiated
the
Headquarters
Agreement
could have
ever imagined
that their
achievement
would be this
grossly
violated?
Mr.
Chairman,
This
time,
the case of
denying visa
to the Iranian
designated
Permanent
Representative
is so
obviously a
breach of the
provisions of
the
Headquarters
Agreement that
no
Member-State
could and
should stay
indifferent
about it and
the Committee
should deal
with it in an
extraordinary
way. H.E. Mr.
Hamid
Aboutalebi,
designated by
the
Iranian
Government to
serve as
Permanent
Representative
to the UN, is
a seasoned and
well-known
carrier
diplomat, who
already served
in
three
Ambassadorial
postings.
While visa
application
for him had
been
filed in early
December, a US
official
spokesman
astonished us,
other
UN diplomats
and every
observer on
Friday 11
April 2014 by
stating
that, I quote:
“we have
informed the
United Nations
and Iran that
we will not
issue a visa
to Mr.
Aboutalebi”.
It
is
obvious that
such refusal
of granting
visa by the
Host Country
authorities
flagrantly
contravene
their legal
obligations
under the
Headquarters
Agreement,
which
unambiguously
states that
its
provisions
shall be
“applicable
irrespective
of the
relations
existing
between the
Governments of
the persons
[...] and the
Government of
the United
States”. This
move also is
in
contravention
of the
principles of
international
law and the
United
Nations
Charter,
including the
principles of
sovereign
equality of
states and
respect for
their
sovereignty
and political
independence.
As
we
indicated in
our note
verbale to
your Mission,
Mr. Chairman,
the
decision of
the US
Government has
indeed serious
negative
implications
for
multilateral
diplomacy, as
it could set a
dangerous
precedent and
adversely
affect the
work of
intergovernmental
organizations
and activities
of their
Member-States.
We therefore
believe it is
the
responsibility
of every UN
delegation to
raise its
objection and
clearly demand
parties to the
Headquarters
Agreement to
strive towards
ensuring that
provisions of
this agreement
are
implemented
scrupulously
as a basic
requirement to
achieve the
purposes and
to respect the
principles
enshrined in
the UN
Charter.
Mr.
Chairman,
The
Headquarters
Agreement
obligates the
host country
in clear
terms,
stipulating
that “The
federal, state
or local
authorities of
the
United States
shall not
impose any
impediments to
transit to or
from
the
headquarters
district of
[…]
representatives
of Members […]
of the United
Nations”, and
that “When
visas are
required for
persons
referred to in
that section,
they shall be
granted
without
charge and as
promptly as
possible”; it
also
stipulates
that “Laws
and
regulations in
force in the
United States
regarding the
residence
of aliens
shall not be
applied in
such manner as
to interfere
with
the privileges
referred to in
section 11”.
Depriving
Member
States of
their inherent
right to
designate
their
representatives
to the United
Nations based
on their own
internal
procedures
would
adversely
affect the
functioning of
the Permanent
Missions.
Furthermore,
it undermines
the work of
the United
Nations
system and
impairs the
very
foundations of
multilateral
diplomacy.
The Government
of the Islamic
Republic of
Iran expressed
its strong
protest to the
US Government
for not
fulfilling its
international
obligations in
a separate
note to the US
Mission in New
York. Iran
also requested
the Legal
Counsel of the
Secretary-General
to take all
necessary
measures to
have the
United States
authorities
abide by
their legal
obligations
under the
Headquarters
Agreement.
Mr.
Chairman,
We
firmly
believe that
this is a very
serious issue
and the
Committee
should address
it in an
urgent and
serious way.
My delegation
requests the
Committee to
pursue this
issue
earnestly and
consider
every way and
means to
rectify the
process with a
view to
ensuring
that the Host
Country
obligations,
as specified
in the
Agreement, are
fully met,
including
through
reconsidering
the decision
regarding the
issue at hand.
We believe
that the
Secretary-General
of the United
Nations, who
represents one
party to the
bilateral
treaty of
Headquarters
Agreement, has
a
responsibility
to shoulder
and has to
work towards
ensuring that
the terms and
provisions of
the Agreement
are strictly
observed.
I
thank you
Again,
we hope to
have the US
position.
A
member coming
out of the
meeting, well
known to Inner
City Press,
told it that
many countries
had spoken in
favor of Iran,
as well as
on "the bank
issue" which
Inner City
Press first
covered, here:
JPMorgan Chase
is closing a
number of
countries'
accounts.
On this, the
Cypriot chair
told Inner
City Press to
expect
a solution
soon. Or a resolution?
On
the US's visa
denial, the UN
Secretariat
under Ban
Ki-moon has
remained
markedly
quiet, even as
the UN's own
agreement with
the US
is flaunted.
Previously,
the UN
opined that
blocking
access to
Yassar
Arafat
violated the
agreement,
as Inner City
Press asked
out, how
doesn't this?
But Ban
doesn't want
to say it.
In
fact, the
meeting wasn't
even initially
listed in the
UN Media Alert
for April 22.
The Free
UN Coalition
for Access
questioned
why, given
the level of
interest.
At the day's
noon briefing,
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric said
there would be
a UNTV
stakeout in
front of the
meeting. (He
didn't answer,
for the second
day in a row,
why on
Western Sahara
the Polisario
Front has now
been banned
from speaking
on UNTV, while
for example
the Turkish
Cypriot leader
Eroglu spoke
on
UNTV on April
21).
Representing
the
US in the
April 22 Host
Country
Committee
meeting was
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Rosemary
DiCarlo
(Permanent
Representative
Samantha Power
was at a
Security
Council
retreat with
Ban Ki-moon.)
Inner
City Press has
asked
why the US
under the Host
Country
Agreement went
so far as to
do a court
filing
supporting
immunity for
Sri Lanka
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Shavendra
Silva,
whose army
unit was
portrayed
engaged in
2009 war
crimes in Ban
Ki-moon's own
report, but
now denies a
visa to
Aboutalebi,
describes as a
translator in
the
1979 hostage
taking.
Politics, of
course. But
we're still
waiting for
an actual
answer. Watch
this site.
, 
