Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpm | Hacker News Reader

> As Kartas holds UN diplomatic immunity, and as Tunisia is a member of the UN, the arrest and detainment is seen as illegal.

This seems like it should be the bigger (though less on topic) deal.

View on HN

The article doesn't mention this, but according to TAP, he was traveling with his regular passport instead of a diplomatic one[1], so he had no diplomatic immunity.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tunisia-libya/tunisia-say...

UN allowing him to travel on a normal passport seems like a big problem. Diplomatic immunity should be SOP for precisely this reason.

I think he used his normal passport because he was entering his own country and had no doubt he is fine. Should be an unthinkable measure to take from here forward for UN officials.

As a US citizen, I was under the impression that I have to use my US passport when entering the US. Is that not the case everywhere?

I'm sure there's an exception for diplomatic passports.

My understanding is that the host country has to agree to receive diplomats, and can expel them at their leisure.

Could it be the case that Tunisia didn't grant his ingress as a diplomat they knew would be investigating their non-compliance with sanctions, he went and did the investigation anyway, and Tunisia now consider this to be a violation of that non-consent?

I am surprised a researcher has diplomatic immunity. Even lower level embassy staff do not necessarily have it.

In the USA I don't think he would be protected as an International Organization staffer (he is not a diplomat):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_Uni...

It's a bit more complex with the UN than normal diplomatic immunity (it is not a country after all). A bit of Google tells me that specialists working for the UN have the same protections as UN officials for the purpose of their mandate and the protections of all UN officials are roughly equivalent to that of a "normal" diplomat:

"As opposed to United Nations officials, experts on missions for the United Nations, like members of the International Law Commission, Special Rapporteurs, or members of United Nations peacekeeping operations, serve under a temporary and specific mandate. They also enjoy certain functionally limited privileges and immunities pursuant to article VI of the General Convention."[1]

The relevant document is "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies" from 1947[2].

So, as long as the US doesn't intend to break that convention specialists working for the UN probably have immunity in the US too.

(IANAL, and so on)

[1] http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cpiun-cpisa/cpiun-cpisa.html [2] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48887&URL_DO=DO_TO...

> I am surprised a researcher has diplomatic immunity.

An indication that he might actually have been doing what he was accused of?

he is accused of "spying", that is: collecting information about things the tunisian government doesn't want other people to know and then give that information to foreign parties.

His job for the UN was to find out if tunisia is violating UN rules.

In other words, he did exactly what they are accusing him of, just that it isn't spying because tunisia have themselves decided to be a part of UN.

'Official researcher' would seem an unusually direct cover for a spy.

If the UN was some sort of real power in the world, it might be. However, it is really only as powerful as the US military makes it, and the current administration has a very dim opinion of the importance, the usefulness, and even the necessity of the UN.

US sphere of influence is huge, but the French-speaking Maghreb is not a place where US is the #1 influential foreign power.

UN has the power that its members collectively attribute to it. It is far more than a US tool.

US foreign policy since WWII has been to maintain hegemony by (successfully) gently discouraging European military strength. The power of the rest of the membership is limited by design and has led to quite a lot of world peace. If you want evidence look at the long list of treaties the US has not signed [1] in order to not lose sovereignty to the international community.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_u...

sure but lets be realistic, even japan's neutered self defense force could bully tunisia

The JSDF is a self defense force in name only at this point. They get away with it because they are very friendly with the US.

There are some real limitations in matters of range and equipment. They are not allowed to have aircraft carriers or cruise missles. IIRC, they are not allowed bomber planes as well. Tools of projections are forbidden.

Off topic, but let me throw a few bits here. It's certainly not a US tool, not like NATO is: when UN security council vetoed (Russia, China) bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, US/NATO went ahead anyway.

But when appropriate, US govt will pull out a UN card. When not, it will be simply disregarded.

So UN doesn't have any power in the real sense: Serbia has been relying on that power yet there's this now practically independent state of Kosovo created against UN rules. Not that I agree with the rules (hopefully we can amend them so there is a viable way for regions to split out of their parent countries, thus avoiding wars).

I'm not sure why this comment is being down voted. I think it's a significant aspect of today's geopolitics that US, arguably after having become an exporter of oil, is becoming protectionist and is actively showing disinterest in foreign cooperation. Given that some of these world-police organizations (forgive the lay-man expression) heavily rely on US, this is pertinent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com