By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, April
11 -- For days
the UN
spokespeople
have resisted
saying if the
US blocking
Iran's nominee
to be
Ambassador to
the UN would
violate the
UN's own
agreement with
the US as Host
Country.
On April 11,
when the US
said "we have
informed the
United Nations
and the
Government of
Iran that we
will not issue
a visa to Mr.
Aboutalebi,"
Inner City
Press asked UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric if
the UN's legal
opinion in
1988 that the
US had a duty
to let Yasser
Arafat in
still applies.
Video
here.
That
is, since the
Host Country
Agreement
hasn't
changed, why
hasn't the UN
simply
reiterated its
precedential
ruling on
Arafat? Is the
only
difference the
change in
Secretaries
General? Or
the end of the
Cold War and
seemingly
uni-polar
world, or at
least
uni-polar UN?
Dujarric
said
that it's that
neither the US
nor Iran have
asked for a
ruling. But
the US
informing the
UN of its
decision
should trigger
some
statement.
Here is the
1988 (and
1953)
background:
From
the "Statement
by the UN
Legal Counsel
concerning the
determination
by the
Secretary of
State of the
United States
of America on
the visa
application of
Mr. Yasser
Arafat, made
at the 136th
meeting of the
Committee on
Relations with
the Host
Country, on 28
November
1988,"
undocs/org/A/C.6/43/7:
2.
[...] As you
know, sections
11, 12 and 13
of the
Headquarters
Agreement
provide, inter
alia, that
invitees of
the United
Nations shall
not be impeded
in their
access to the
Headquarters
district, that
this applies
irrespective
of the state
of bilateral
relations of
the host
country and
that the
necessary
visas "shall
be granted ...
as promptly as
possible".
10.
For the
record, I wish
to state that
the United
Nations has
not acquiesced
in such a
practice. It
is true that,
on certain
occasions, the
United States
has declined
to issue visas
to
representatives
of States or
to persons
invited to the
United
Nations, and
the United
Nations has
not insisted
where the
requesting
State itself,
for reasons of
its own, did
not pursue the
matter. The
United Nations
legal position
regarding the
obligation of
the host
country to
grant visas
has at all
times been
perfectly
clear to the
host country,
as was the
United Nations
position with
respect to the
so-called
security
reservation...
12. To
sum up, I am
of the opinion
that the host
country was
and is under
an obligation
to grant the
visa request
Even
further back,
document E/2397
of 10 April
1953 explains
that:
"Section
21
of the
Headquarters
Agreement
establishes
the procedures
for handling
any such
dispute. If
the dispute is
not settled by
negotiation or
other agreed
mode of
settlement, it
“shall be
referred for
final decision
to a tribunal
of three
arbitrators,
one to be
named by the
Secretary-General,
one to be
named by the
Secretary of
State of the
United States,
and the third
to be chosen
by the two,
or, if they
should fail to
agree upon a
third, then by
the President
of the
International
Court of
Justice.”
So
what's
different now?
Watch this
site.
, 
