HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE MEETS AT REQUEST OF PERMANENT MISSION OF CUBA

Press Release
HQ/604

HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE MEETS AT REQUEST OF PERMANENT MISSION OF CUBA

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country met this morning at the request of the Permanent Mission of Cuba to discuss the subject of entry visas for the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments, which is to be held at Headquarters from 30 August to 1 September 2000.

The Cuban representative said that the authorities of the host country had denied a visa to the President of the National Assembly of the People’s Power of the Republic of Cuba, Ricardo Alarcon, giving the reason that the Conference was private and not covered by the Headquarters Agreement. Cuba noted recent resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union -- the decision was a serious problem of procedure.

The representative of Iraq said the Headquarters Agreement did apply to this situation. The refusal to grant visas to the Cuban delegation was a deliberate attempt to impede the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The representative of Libya also supported the Cuban position.

While the representatives of France (speaking for the European Union), the United Kingdom and Spain were of the position that the Inter-Parliamentary Union did not fall under the Headquarters Agreement, they asked that the host country reconsider its decision for reasons of courtesy.

The representative of the United States said that the Headquarters Agreement did not apply in this case because the Conference was not a United Nations meeting. Although the host country was not obliged to grant visas in such circumstances, it would consider the appeals made today.

Statements were also made by the representatives of China, Costa Rica, Honduras, Hungary, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Spain, and the Russian Federation.

The representatives of Mexico, Turkey and Venezuela participated in the meeting as observers.

Statements

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said it was not a new thing for the members of the Committee to find delays in granting visas to Cuban civil servants to participate in the work of the United Nations. Two cases had been examined this year in formal meetings of the Committee. After both cases had been debated in the Committee, his delegation had asked for an explanation in writing. In a note verbale, Cuba had been told that the delays were due to administrative errors. More recently, the Cuban Mission had sent a note to the United States concerning the same issue. Cuba hoped that it would receive a reply soon and that it would be distributed as an official document.

In those cases, Cuban authorities had done what was required regarding the granting of visas, in accordance with host country conditions, he said. The application of a selective pattern in granting visas to Cuban delegations was a reality which had been made sharper over the last few months. Cuba could not understand the reasons for administrative errors and could not but conclude that the pattern was politically motivated.

The authorities of the host country had denied visas to the President of the National Parliament, Ricardo Alarcon, to attend the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments as part of the celebration of the Millennium Summit, he said. That decision had been communicated by telephone by host country authorities, with the reason given that the meeting was private and not covered by the Headquarters Agreement.

Yesterday, the State Department had confirmed that communication to the head of the Cuban interest in Washington. The request for visas had been completed in the necessary fashion. He voiced his country’s disagreement with the pretext brought forward by the host country. It was within the mandate of the Committee to analyse the existence of political motives with selective and discriminatory results.

He said that the Conference was an important part of the Millennium Summit. It would afford civil society greater opportunity to achieve the aims and purposes of the United Nations. The United States delegation was in a leadership position in questions of participation of civil society. He could quote many statements of high-level United States officials in that regard. The decision of the United States not to grant visas had changed the spirit of the celebration for the Millennium Summit. It was all the more serious that the United States had waited until the last minute to inform the Committee. The first notice that Cuba had was the result of telephone call from Havana.

Beyond the problem of the substance of the decision, there was a serious problem of procedure, he said. United States authorities had acted wrongly to create a “fait accompli”. He referred to recent resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter- Parliamentary Union.

It was obvious that the United Nations not only had a political but a legal responsibility in the case, he said. The United States had said it was a private meeting. Cuba felt that it was a deep error that put the success of the meeting at risk. There were political, moral and legal reasons to demand that the host country grant visas to the Cuban delegation. He wanted to know what right the United States had to regulate the composition of a proposed private meeting held at United Nations Headquarters.

He asked the Committee to deplore the denial of visas to the Cuban delegation and asked the authorities of the host country to grant visas in compliance with its moral and legal obligations. The statement of the President of the Cuban Parliament would have lasted only five minutes. If the host country did not reconsider, its decision would gravely harm its international image. Numerous Presidents of national parliaments would discuss the matter.

He thanked the Chairman for calling today’s meeting. The Committee had special importance at the United Nations and he trusted that it would bring a constructive contribution. Cuba would continue to respect the consensus, but would reserve the right to take the matter to other organs of the United Nations, including the Sixth Committee (Legal).

ISA AYAD BABAA (Libya) associated himself with the statement made by Cuba. His delegation had experienced the same problem. He noted that that practice was in conflict with international law. He noted that the delegation of Libya would not be able to take part in the Inter-Parliamentary Union because, according to the host country, a request for a visa needed to be made one month in advance. This made it impossible for the Libyan delegation to arrive on time.

The host country needed to take on its responsibility without impeding the arrival of delegations from any country. Why should the host country not take on the attitude of Switzerland and give visas to all delegations? he asked. Libya hoped that the Committee would continue its efforts and that the host country would show some flexibility in solving this problem.

JULIAN JUAREZ (Mexico) said the Conference would be a great opportunity for countries to meet and all representatives should attend. He hoped that the host country would reconsider its decision so that the Conference could help to build common objectives of all countries.

ABDUL MUNIM AL-KADHE (Iraq) agreed with the Cuban delegation that the Headquarters Agreement applied to this situation. He noted that the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States had been signed some decades before and could be revised to reflect the evolution of the work of the United Nations over the past decade.

Even if the Inter-Parliamentary Union was a special meeting, holding it at the same time as the Millennium Summit showed the close relation between the two. In that regard, all delegations should be able to participate in a non- discriminatory manner. The refusal to grant a visa to the Cuban delegation was a deliberate act to impede the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and was unacceptable. He hoped that the host country would overturn its decision.

MOHAMMAD KAMAL (Malaysia) said that he supported the case put forward by the Cuban delegation. Malaysia believed that the Inter-Parliamentary Union was a very important meeting and the host country should observe its international obligations.

The denial of visas to the Cuban delegation would have ramifications for future conferences that required universal cooperation, as it would deter such meetings from taking place in the United States. He appealed to the United States to reconsider its decision.

MARCO ANTONEO SUAZO (Honduras) regretted the position that Cuba found itself in. He expressed his feelings of solidarity with Cuba and asked that the host country reconsider its decision. Hoping to clarify the situation, he requested the opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations. In any case, access should be open to all participants.

YVES DOUTRIAUX (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that although the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union did not fall under the Headquarters Agreement, he hoped the host country would reconsider its decision on the level of courtesy.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union had a cooperation agreement with the United Nations which dated back to 1996. The conference of parliaments was taking place within the premises of the United Nations and there were certain links to the meeting of the Millennium Summit. He hoped that some visas would be granted to the delegation, especially to Mr. Alarcon.

SUN JIWEN (China) said that the Inter-Parliamentary Union was holding an unprecedented conference of delegates of national parliaments. China believed that, as the host country, the United States had a responsibility and obligation to allow all delegations to have access to this conference. The host country had made it impossible for the delegation of the Cuban Parliament to come to the meeting. China hoped that such inappropriate behaviour would be changed in a timely manner.

VLADIMIR TARABRIN (Russian Federation) said that he understood that visas had also been denied to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which had expressed a desire to participate in the conference. He regretted the host country’s decision.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union was an important event in the context of the Millennium Summit and it was important to ensure universal participation. He did not share the view that this was a private meeting. He called on the host country to reconsider its decision and issue a visa to all delegations of national parliaments, who had a right to participate in this Conference.

EMILIA CASTRO DE BARISH (Costa Rica) hoped that this would be resolved in a positive manner.

ISSOUF OUMAR MAIGA (Mali) said that the situation was of great concern to his country. It was problematic that the host country did not feel it necessary to grant visas to the Cuban delegation. The Inter-Parliamentary Union should not be seen within the framework of the Millennium Summit.

It was inconceivable that the United States, which was seen as the champion of liberty and freedom worldwide, continued to deny the Cuban delegation from coming to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He asked for the opinion of the Legal Counsel regarding his reading of the Headquarters Agreement.

JOHN ANDREW GRAINGER (United Kingdom) said he did not think there was a breach of legal obligation. Instead, it was a matter of courtesy, as the representative of France had said. The Inter-Parliamentary Union had a connection with the Millennium Summit and there were a number of General Assembly resolutions which stressed cooperation with the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

He also noted that Cuba was a Member of the United Nations and participated fully in the work of the General Assembly. He hoped that the host country would reconsider its decision. This should not apply to the Yugoslav delegation, he noted, which held a different position within the General Assembly.

JULIO MONTESINO (Spain) regretted that this situation had arisen for technical reasons. He expressed conformity with the position of the delegations of France and the United Kingdom. He asked that the host country reconsider its decision for reasons of courtesy and due to the link between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This would ensure universal participation in such events. He hoped that this would be resolved in a favourable manner for all.

ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) said that he was not in a position to formulate a definitive position, as the matter was currently under deliberation in the Hungarian capital. The situation was not as simple as it seemed. The Inter- Parliamentary Union was independent from the United Nations. Hungary was not ready to conclude that the Headquarters Agreement should be taken into consideration. This was a delicate problem and should be resolved in a favourable manner.

ROBERT B. ROSENSTOCK (United States) said the Headquarters Agreement did not apply because the conference in question was not a United Nations meeting. He added that welcoming the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting did not make it a United Nations conference. In consequence, there was not an obligation by the host country to grant visas.

He said that the United States would consider the appeals of France and the United Kingdom. The United States had, in fact, granted visas to two members of the Cuban delegation. He would certainly take under consideration the appeals made today.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said that he had just received a note that said visas had been granted to two assistants of the presiding officer, but that the host country would not grant a visa to the presiding officer, which was problematic.

His delegation did not believe that the technical point of view should be the basis for resolving this matter. The Headquarters Agreement was sufficiently explicit.

This was a gross violation of Cuba’s sovereignty because it infringed upon its decision as to who would be a member of the Cuban delegation. The reasons were not technical but political and electoral. They created a serious double standard.

Mr. ROSENSTOCK (United States) said that the appeals would be noted.

SOTIROS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus), Committee Chairman, said that the representative of the United States would convey the appeals to the host country. He felt it best to maintain the consensus that had prevailed in the Committee. This issue would be resolved in a satisfactory manner to all parties.

* *** *