• BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        True, but it does have Permanent Observer State status. But it’s a moot argument either way as the immunity given by treaty explicitly extends to anyone invited by the UN to conduct “official business”.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 days ago

      It is unclear, however, if the US move to deny or revoke visas complies with that document

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Use full quote from the article and see how stupid that sounds.

        It is unclear, however, if the US move to deny or revoke visas complies with that document, which outlines that foreign officials’ attendance in New York should not be impeded by the US, “irrespective of the relations” between their respective governments and the US.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 days ago

          Your argument is that if the US govt breaks their own law to prosecute their ally who has immunity then they can do it?

          Sure, people can do whatever they want at the end of the day and this is meaningless time waste