HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE HEARS LEGAL OPINION CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO PARTICIPANTS IN CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

Press Release
HQ/605

HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE HEARS LEGAL OPINION CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO PARTICIPANTS IN CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

Assistant Secretary-General For Legal Affairs Says Host Country Has No Legal Obligation to Issue Entry Visas

The host country could not be called upon to issue entry visas to participants in the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments as a matter of legal obligation, Ralph Zacklin, Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, told the Committee on Relations with the Host Country this afternoon.

Providing a legal opinion on the matter at the request of Committee members, he cited section 11 (5) of the Headquarters Agreement, saying that the denial of entry visas to invitees of the Conference would not constitute a violation of the host country’s obligations under that Agreement.

However, he pointed out, the nexus between the Conference and the United Nations was such that the host country could be expected to issue them as a matter of courtesy. Based on that, the Secretary-General had indeed appealed to the competent authorities to reconsider their initial denial of entry visas.

Committee Chairman Sotirios Zackheos (Cyprus) said there had been extensive debate on the issue and that all discussions would be recorded. Proposals made by the representatives of Iraq and Libya would provide an opportunity to revisit the issue of entry visas for officials wishing to participate in the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments in future meetings, concerning recommendations to the Sixth Committee (Legal).

The Committee heard statements by several representatives under the agenda item, concerning consideration of and recommendations on issues arising in connection with the implementation of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations.

Iraq's representative said his delegation had requested today’s meeting because the general nature and work of the United Nations appeared jeopardized by the host country's practice of granting or denying visas as a way of interfering with the rights of Member States. In order to ensure the Committee's effectiveness, a recommendation should be tabled in the Sixth Committee condemning the host country's refusal to grant entry visas to delegations wishing to participate in a United Nations-related event.

Host Country Committee - 1a - Press Release HQ/605 204th Meeting (PM) 1 September 2000

The representative of Libya urged the Committee to recommend to the General Assembly that the host country issue visas as requested and without political pretext. Procedure should not prevent representatives of other countries from attending events held at the United Nations, he added.

Cuba's representative stressed the connection between the Conference and the Millennium Assembly. Selectivity and discrimination could not provide a foundation for the exercise of any legal standard. Cuba had complained at earlier meetings about politically motivated selectivity and discriminatory treatment of Cuban officials or international officials of Cuban origin.

The United States representative said the legal opinion made it clear that the host country had no legal obligation in this case. Though there had been an appeal to grant the entry visas –- and some had subsequently been granted –- the host country had never agreed to grant all visas. The issue was whether or not it was prudent to tamper with the 1947 Headquarters Agreement in a way that would spread obligations so broadly that no host country would know what was included and what was not.

Other speakers this afternoon were the representatives of the Russian Federation, China, France and Costa Rica.

Host Country Committee - 3 - Press Release HQ/605 204th Meeting (PM) 1 September 2000

Statements

RALPH ZACKLIN, Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, recalled that in a letter dated 31 August, the Chairman had requested a legal opinion on the status of the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments and the obligations of the host country regarding the issuance of visas to participants.

Pointing out that the Conference was convened by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and not by the United Nations, he said it could not, therefore, be considered a United Nations meeting. Neither could it be deemed to constitute “official United Nations business” within the meaning of section 11 of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (“the Headquarters Agreement”).

He said that section 11 (5) in particular provided that “[t]he federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of… other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business”. The denial of entry visas to invitees of the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments would not, therefore, constitute a violation of the host country’s obligations under the Headquarters Agreement.

The Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments was convened at United Nations Headquarters with the support of the Secretary-General, he noted. Moreover, General Assembly resolution 53/13 of 28 October 1998 had welcomed that initiative by the IPU in the context of its efforts to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the Union.

He said that General Assembly resolution 54/12 of 27 October 1999 had further welcomed information regarding preparations, made with the Secretary- General’s support, to hold the conference from 30 August to 1 September 2000 in conjunction with the Assembly’s fifty-fifth session, designated the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations. Finally, in the annex to resolution 54/281 of 11 August 2000, the General Assembly had decided that a representative of the Conference may be included in the list of speakers for the plenary meeting of the Millennium Summit.

In view of those resolutions, he said, and in particular that the Conference was being held in conjunction with the Millennium Assembly, the Conference was clearly a United Nations-related meeting. Thus, while the host country could not be called upon to issue the visas concerned as a matter of legal obligation, the nexus between the Conference and the United Nations was such that the host country could be expected to issue them as a matter of courtesy. Based on that, the Secretary-General had indeed appealed to the competent authorities of the host country to reconsider their initial denial.

He said that in light of the fact that the Headquarters Agreement did not specifically cover United Nations-related meetings and that such meetings may become increasingly common as relations between the United Nations and other international and non-governmental actors expanded, the Committee on Relations with the Host Country may wish to consider recommending that the General Assembly include an appropriate request to the host country, in the context of its future resolutions welcoming meetings and conferences at United Nations Headquarters which were related to or were held in conjunction with the sessions and work of the General Assembly.

ABDUL MUNIM AL-KADHE (Iraq) said that at first blush, the legal opinion presented today appeared to be a valid one. The opinion was relevant and had confirmed the fact that the host country was duty bound to provide entry visas to all members of the IPU, without exception. His delegation had requested that today’s meting be convened not merely because Yugoslavia and Cuba had been denied visas, but because the general nature and work of United Nations meetings appeared jeopardized by the fact that the host country was using the granting of visas as a way of interfering with the rights of Member States to chose their representatives.

In fact, he continued, refusing entry visas to some delegations was in conflict with the laws and regulations that governed international relations. That was all the more true when it concerned the matter of meetings which were organized to bring together legislative leaders from all the countries of the world. The host country had agreed to the meeting of the IPU on its territory. Consequently, then, there was no ground for introducing exceptions to particular participants.

The fact that this had occurred was particularly disturbing, he said, in light of the fact that the number of United Nations members was on the increase. Non-governmental organizations and the private sector were participating more and more in the activities and events planned for United Nations Headquarters. It would, therefore, be difficult to put a limit on entry visas. Doing so would hinder the activities of the United Nations and hamper the Organization’s objectives for the millennium. If the host country was not prepared to host these events, the Committee should have been informed so organizations such as the IPU could look for a neutral country.

Further concerning the Conference, he said that the three-day event had obviously been allowed to convene at the United Nations in order to coincide with the Millennium Summit. Therefore, the host country should have allowed all entry visas regardless of political implications.

Responsibility must be taken to ensure that the Committee could be effective, he said. Therefore, a recommendation should be tabled in the sixth Committee condemning the fact that the host country had refused to grant entry visas to delegations wishing to participate in a United Nations-related event. That recommendation should also suggest that such activity not be repeated in the future. At the fifty-fifth General Assembly, Iraq expected the arrival of a colleague for whom no visa had been issued. His delegation would be following that situation closely.

ISA AYAD BABAA (Libya) said that the Committee should make a recommendation to the General Assembly that the host country abide by the rules previously agreed upon and all visas be provided as requested, without political pretext. Democratic procedures should not prevent representatives from other countries to attend events held at the United Nations. He appealed to the host country, in light of today’s meeting, to take the appropriate steps and measures.

SERGEI KAREV (Russian Federation) said the legal opinion was highly important because it proved that, as things now stood, there were difficulties concerning the activities of other bodies organizing meetings at the United Nations. That had been made clear and shown objectively in the Legal Counsel’s statement. On the basis of that statement, the Committee should make its own proposals to the General Assembly, in particular to the Sixth Committee, in order to ensure that such problems were avoided in future.

He said it looked more than strange when the Committee on Relations with the Host Country unanimously approved resolutions covering meetings of various bodies at Headquarters and then found that those meetings could not actually be held. It was necessary to take a hard look at the legal opinion and, on the basis of that opinion, make recommendations to the General Assembly.

LI JUNHUA (China) said that even though the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments was not strictly a United Nations meeting, it had been convened on the basis of two General Assembly resolutions, it had been supported by the Secretary-General and had close connections with the Millennium Summit. Under those circumstances, any leader of parliament who was willing to attend the Conference should not be denied a visa for any technical reason.

He said he agreed completely with the Legal Counsel that the host country should extend visas to the parliamentary leaders from Cuba and Yugoslavia as a matter of courtesy. China also agreed with the statement of the representative of the Russian Federation regarding the need to prevent similar difficulties in the future. The Committee should, therefore, make proposals to the Sixth Committee and the General Assembly to discuss how such problems should be approached.

FRANCOIS ALABRUNE (France) welcomed the legal opinion with satisfaction, as it echoed the opinion of his delegation. In fact, France had earlier appealed to the host country about the issue of the denial of Cuba’s entry visa and was told that the question would be put to the United States authorities. He hoped today to hear about the outcome of the efforts made by the representative of the host country in his talks with the United States Government.

EMILIA CASTRO DE BARISH (Costa Rica) said that the legal opinion had shed major light on the sensitive matter. She took note of the opinions expressed today and at previous meetings on the subject of the issuance of visas and hoped that the legal opinion would provide guidelines for future discussions on the matter of participation in international conferences.

Mr. BABAA (Libya) requested that the legal opinion be regarded as a Committee document.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus), Committee Chairman, said the opinion would be circulated and included in the records of the meeting.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said there was an undeniable link between the Conference and the Millennium Summit. Cuba agreed with the suggestion that the General Assembly, through the Sixth Committee or other bodies, give practical effect to the legal opinion.

He said courtesy would be a high-minded and exceptional act on the part of the host country stemming from the fact that the United Nations was situated on United States territory. The authorities of the host country had shown themselves to be discourteous to members of the diplomatic community, as seen in their day- to-day difficulties with various agencies. Courtesy was an obligation of the host country.

He said that specific invitations conveyed to the IPU through the General Assembly resolutions established the connection between the Conference and the Millennium Assembly. Selectivity and discrimination could not provide a foundation for the exercise of any legal standard. Cuba had complained at earlier meetings and distributed notes verbales about politically motivated selective and discriminatory treatment of Cuban officials or international officials of Cuban origin.

Stating that the authorities of the host country had behaved in an alarmingly irresponsible way, he cited several instances when such officials had encountered difficulties while seeking visas.

ROBERT ROSENSTOCK (United States), on a point of order, said the legal opinion was the issue before the Committee, not a history of incidents going back several months.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said his delegation was abiding strictly by the subject under discussion.

Mr. ZACKHEOS (Cyprus), Committee Chairman, allowed the speaker to continue.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba), associating himself with the proposal that practical steps be taken to resolve the issue, said matters of consensus could not be treated as though they were subject to veto. There was no veto in the Committee.

Mr. ROSENSTOCK (United States) said that he was pleased to see that some members of the Committee were so in favour of the work of parliamentarians and the democracy that flowed from that work. He hoped that delegations that had spoken about host country obligations would read the legal opinion once it was distributed. That opinion made it clear that the host country had no legal obligation in this case.

Though there had been an appeal to grant the entry visas in this case –- and subsequently, some had been granted –- the host country had never agreed to grant all visas. He admitted that the appeal was wider than the eventual outcome.

Beyond that, he continued, the issue was whether or not it was prudent to tamper with the 1947 Headquarters Agreement in such a way that would spread obligations so broadly that no host country would know what was included and what was not. And while he stood by the legal opinion, he said that careful consideration might highlight the need for further discussion or clarification of this issue in the Sixth Committee. But, for the time being, that 1947 decision, which had not proved problematic until now, ensured that host country actions should continue to be precise and reasonable. It was perhaps not even appropriate to attempt to renegotiate the Headquarters Agreement, and particularly not in haste.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ PARILLA (Cuba) said that he considered the remarks by the representative of the United States insulting. It was funny and a little sad, he said, that when the participation of others in an international conference had not been allowed, that members of the Committee should be lectured about democracy.

Mr. ROSENSTOCK (United States) said that if the cap fits, wear it.

Mr. ZACKHEOS, the Committee Chairman, said that there had been extensive debate on this issue and that all discussions would be recorded. In particular, he believed that the proposals made today by Iraq and Libya would provide an opportunity to revisit the entry visa issue in future meetings concerning recommendations for the Sixth Committee.

* *** *