IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES VOICE CONCERNS OVER VEHICLE PARKING PROGRAMME

Committee on Relations                                     

 with Host Country                                         

220^th Meeting (PM)

IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES VOICE

CONCERNS OVER VEHICLE PARKING PROGRAMME

Delegates to the Committee on Relations with the Host Country expressed concern this afternoon that the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles, a year and a half into its operation, was failing to solve their parking problems.

The representative of the United States said his Mission had tried to respect New York’s desire for clear streets, while facilitating the work of diplomats.  Stating that the parking programme was working well despite a few problems, he noted that only 23 out of 190 foreign permanent missions, or 12 per cent of them, had submitted complaints.  Thus, if 88 per cent of the missions were satisfied, that was a sign of success.  He said he expected a spirited conversation today, but hoped that those present could focus on major problems as opposed to individual tickets.  As for individual problems, he would be happy to deal with them later.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he hoped the parking programme would improve because it constituted one of the most pressing points of contention between the diplomatic corps and the host country.  In that context, he found the statistic that 88 per cent of the missions were satisfied, to be quite interesting.  Declaring that the programme had not attained all the goals it had originally set out, he noted that it actually created considerable difficulties in diplomats’ work.

He expressed concern that appeals and reviews, in response to diplomats’ parking tickets, were handled by the same body, instead of by two separate panels.  That simply was not fair.  In that regard, he proposed the creation of a working group –- involving city officials, host country representatives, and foreign diplomats –- to agree upon mutually acceptable rules.  Criticizing the rule that, once traffic laws had been broken three times, a mission could not re-register a vehicle, he pointed out that, many times, police officials did not address the problem of non-mission vehicles that were illegally parked in missions’ spots.  He also did not approve of the fact that missions had to submit themselves to domestic jurisdiction when dealing with parking problems.  That contradicted international law.

China’s representative said that, since the parking programme had come into effect, parking problems had not been solved, and diplomatic representatives had been denied some of their rights.  Moreover, discriminatory and inappropriate penalties had been assessed to diplomatic vehicles.  As a result, many missions could not use their diplomat vehicles for much of their official business.  That doubtlessly had an impact on the security of their activities.  The current programme undermined the diplomats’ rights under international law and left a great deal of room for improvement.

Among his proposals, he suggested the establishment of an unimpeded channel for diplomatic interventions.  Regarding penalties, mission personnel should be able to talk to the appropriate host country representatives, as diplomatic interventions were a right under international law, and the parking programme had no right to take away that right, obstruct that process, or change the outcomes.  The Committee should be able to consult with host country and establish measures in favour of diplomatic vehicles on official business.  More parking spaces should be allotted to designated areas, and measures should be enhanced to prevent and penalize vehicles that illegally occupied spaces reserved for diplomats’ vehicles.  He also urged enhancing the education of the law enforcement officers.

He said that the parking spaces assigned to his Mission were often occupied by unauthorized vehicles.  Often, unidentified vehicles were parked on a long-term basis in those spots, thus posing a threat to the security of the Mission.  That must be solved as soon as possible.  At the same time, diplomats should respect the laws of host country, as well as the traffic conditions of the city.  But, he opposed attempts to solve diplomatic parking problems by means inconsistent with international law and the host country’s obligations.

Syria’s representative said that one year into the programme’s existence, a review was in order, not only in terms of legal aspects, but also in terms of implementation.  The opinion of the legal counsel on the programme was “just an opinion”, which did not involve other delegations.  Holding to that opinion required a regular review of the progrmame, which was experiencing many problems.  Additional obligations had been imposed on diplomats, which either had to pay the fines or contest the tickets.  Often, the rules of contesting a penalty did not coincide with diplomatic privileges, in accordance with the Vienna treaty.  In addition, many diplomatic vehicles were stopped by police officers at bridges and tunnels.  That was about requisite respect in treatment of the vehicle and the diplomat.  The city should inform those police officers about the diplomats’ privileges and immunities.

Speaking for the United Nations Travel and Transportation Service, its representative said that the Service had implemented internal guidelines in line with the host city’s Diplomatic Parking Programme.  The guidelines emphasized requirements of the changed environment following the enactment of the Diplomatic Parking Programme, effective 1 November 2002.  In addition, the Service frequently issued reminders to its drivers to obey all traffic laws of the host country.

Reviewing parking procedures, he noted that United Nations drivers could not always avoid getting parking tickets when delivering special correspondence to missions and other official destinations.  Local parking regulations were constructed to allow commercial licenced vehicles park in certain areas, in order to make deliveries.  Since the United Nations vehicles carry diplomatic plates, New York police authorities issued parking tickets to United Nations vehicles when making deliveries.  A formal request in November 2002 for six additional commercial parking decals to cover the requirements of United Nations Headquarters, unfortunately, had been denied by the host authorities.

Among its activities, the Service had implemented an electronic vehicular tracking system to monitor the use of vehicle activity, including authorized driver, date, time vehicle, and speed.  Individual drivers could be matched with parking tickets, and evidence could be produced if a parking ticket was wrongly issued to a United Nations vehicle.  Drivers were also equipped with digital cameras when driving on assignments, which allowed for supporting evidence in the case of an appeal against a wrongly issued ticket.  Despite unresolved issues, such as that of additional commercial parking decals, the Service had a “good” relationship with the New York City authorities to ensure observance of the parking regulations.

The observer from Thailand said that two parking spots per mission might be too little.  Insisting that each mission must always be able to park its vehicles in its assigned spaces, he also said that additional parking spaces for deliveries should be made available.  He expressed regret that parking spaces in front of the permanent representatives’ residences had been removed.  That caused “severe constraints”, since official functions were sometimes held there.  He also referred to the opinion of the United Nations Legal Counsel, which found that, although the programme did not inherently contradict international law, problems might arise if it was not properly implemented.  Thus, it should be subjected to periodic reviews.

The observer from Nepal added that city officials should work with the drivers of diplomatic vehicles so that the drivers understood where diplomatic parking zones were located.

The representative of Costa Rica said that the system of terminology, accepted at the outset, had shown that nearly all of the fines had been invalid.  Nor had New York met a fundamental obligation, namely, protection of diplomats   24 hours a day, seven days a week.  He rallied to the Russian Federation’s proposal that a working group be established and open to all interested parties, but no new legal opinions or clarifications were necessary.

The observer from Trinidad and Tobago was grateful for the survey and requested that another one be done on requests from diplomats made on the hot line.  From her experience, not a very high percentage of those calls were answered, and the vehicles were towed away.  A new development concerned the inability of the persons answering the phone to understand the location of      43^rd Street and Tudor City Place.  Like many other missions, hers was also concerned about the use of diplomatic spaces by non-diplomatic vehicles.  Also, some officers turned a blind eye to parking violations by non-diplomats when those were illegally parked in the diplomatic spots.  The problem was especially acute on weekends and during the evenings.

The observer from Poland said that unauthorized use of diplomatic parking spaces by non-mission vehicles, a phenomenon that took place frequently, constituted a security concern.  Additionally, with regard to insurance for diplomatic vehicles, he lamented that many United States insurance companies, such as Geico and State Farm, were either unwilling to insure the vehicles or inclined to charge much more than was asked from United States citizens.

The observer from Turkey said diplomats were being singled out for tickets, more so than other city residents.  They were also experiencing intolerance from city officials.  He added that, because diplomats had to contest their own tickets, take photos of violations, and call parking hotlines, they were being distracted from their professional purposes.

The observer from Mali said he was also not satisfied with the programme.  In that context, he voiced support for the Russian Federation’s proposal for a working group, which could lead to new suggestions for dealing with parking problems.

The Committee Secretary read out the list of issues raised today:  the lack of maintaining respect for full use of designated spaces for diplomatic spaces; insufficient training of police officers, notably regarding diplomats’ rights; objections to the implied subjection to local jurisdiction by virtue of the appeals and review process; the lack of compliance with those deadlines; the fact that rulings on appeals did not contain explicit grounds on their findings; that the appeal procedure was highly burdensome and impeded, rather than facilitated, missions’ work, in some cases posing security threats; problems with the tow hotline and web site; the conclusion that most or many of the summons were invalid and in need of appeal; and the non-transferability of the decals, their number and the lack of spaces in front of the residences.

The representative of the Russian Federation proposed that a time frame be set up for further discussion, such as in two months, at which time a decision could be taken about whether to establish a working group on the matter.

The United States’ representative said he would review the issues that had been presented today.  Some were new, and so he wanted to be sure that he had a full and complete understanding.  He hoped to be able to do the necessary research before the fall.

Costa Rica’s representative said he thought the idea was to review the programme, and not just the specific issues raised today.

Trusting that the host country and the host city would need some time to study and address those issues, the Committee Chairman said he would convene a further meeting in July.

Turkey’s representative turned to the new customs procedures applying to diplomats importing their household items to the United States.  Two incoming diplomats had been subjected to the procedure.  In the first case, a container of household goods was put on hold by United States customs authorities, x-rayed, totally stripped, and delayed beyond the so-called grace period.  As a result, the consulate was expected to pay an additional charge of more than $1,000.  Two months later, the same practice was applied to another arriving diplomat.

He said those requests had been “of an unfair nature”, but because of the aim of releasing those contents to the owners, the amount had been paid in full.  Reimbursements had been requested by the capital, but those had not been met with any positive response so far.  He categorically believed that that procedure was contrary to established diplomatic practice and violated diplomatic immunity.  The diplomats had been told that random checking was being applied.  He understood that the United States might act with increased security and sensitivity about customs procedures, however, as a diplomatic mission to the United Nations, it could not avoid feeling frustrated over the “excessive checks” to which its counselors were being subjected.

The representative of the United States said that the issue, raised by the Turkish observer, had not been taken up with the United States Mission, but rather with the United States Government in Washington, D.C. It would thus be dealt with there.

The representative of the Russian Federation brought up the question of visas, saying there had been unjustified delays in the issuing of visas to visiting Russian experts, thus hindering the work of the Russian Mission.

The representative of the United States responded that he would look into the matter, but that the issue would probably be better handled in Moscow with the United States embassy there.

The observer from Nepal raised a concern over diplomats being asked to waive their diplomatic privileges when trying to find accommodation.  Also, he wondered why attendants were not giving visas for time periods that corresponded to the diplomats.

Before concluding the meeting, the Chairman congratulated Robert C. Moller, of the United States Department of State and best known in his capacity as United States’ representative to the Committee, on his retirement.  Ralph Zacklin, on behalf of the Secretariat, as well as the representative of Cyprus and the Committee Rapporteur, also congratulated Mr. Moller.

Mr. Moller responded that he was proud of what the Committee had been able to accomplish.

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country was established in 1971 to deal with the security of diplomatic missions accredited to the United Nations, the safety of their personnel, and responsibilities with regard to diplomatic delegations.  Other questions considered by the Committee include diplomatic privileges and immunities; transportation and parking; housing; activities to assist the diplomatic community; and public relations on behalf of United Nations aims within the community.

Current Committee members are Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, France, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, United Kingdom and the host country, the United States.

Participating in today’s meeting as observers were Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Nepal, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Also present at this afternoon’s meeting was Margaret Tiven, the New York City Commissioner for the United Nations and Consular Corps.

* *** *