According to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3, “[The President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers…” This means that the president of the United States can either accept or deny the incoming ambassador of a foreign country. However, in accordance to the 1947 agreement that the United States signed, the United States is obliged to grant entry visas to representatives of United Nations member states. Thus, the United States and more specifically the president of the United States, has no right to deny a visa or entry to the country. Nor does the U.S. have the right to pass a bill that blocks entry if the individual is an incoming ambassador of the United Nations.
The elements I have listed above are the “technical” facts.” However, some may say the technical problems are not the problems with the current issue. Therefore, I will elaborate on the “non-technical” facts that will better quell anger toward Iran’s ambassador nomination and view the current situation with an objective, cool-headed mentality.
The reason the White House and the Senate are denying the issuing of a visa to newly named Iranian ambassador to the U.N. is that the individual, Hamid Aboutalebi, is believed to have had ties to the 1979 occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. It is another “technical” fact that Aboutalebi was a member of the Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line, the group of militants that seized the embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
However, many say he had no direct tie with the occupation on that day. During an interview with the local media, Aboutalebi mentioned he was a mere student translator and negotiator and denied his involvement in the occupation. Also, Abbas Abdi, one of the leaders of the occupation, then told CNN exclusively that Aboutalebi was not in Tehran—the capital of Iran—during the initial invasion. Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official said on April 12 that “Tehran is not considering a replacement for Hamid Aboutalebi.”
The refusal of granting a visa to Aboutalebi will only weaken President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve the hectic relationship that the United States holds with Iran. It is known that the U.S. put a lot of effort into curbing Iran’s nuclear program. Also, in an atmosphere where the fame of the U.S. as the leader of the world is fading due to the rise of other potential superpowers, the decision will only weaken its relationship with the U.N.
Diplomats from Syria and North Korea, who are the representatives of nations that have perpetrated numerous crimes against humanity for decades, are now residing in the center of Manhattan with a limited “permitted-zone” to a radius of 25 miles. The same restriction could be applied to Aboutalebi if he were to be granted access to the United States as a U.N. ambassador. The United States has to grant the visa to Aboutalebi if it knows what’s good for it.
Do you agree with Andrew? Would it be a poor decision not to grant the visa? What would be the consequences of granting the visa, if any? Please send all feedback or any responses to this piece to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
