DIPLOMATIC PARKING PROGRAMME, DELAYS IN CLEARING OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS AT U.S.POINTS OF ENTRY AMONG ISSUES RAISED IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE

Committee on Relations

with Host Country

223^rd Meeting (AM)

DIPLOMATIC PARKING PROGRAMME, DELAYS IN CLEARING OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS

AT U.S.POINTS OF ENTRY AMONG ISSUES RAISED IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE

In the Committee on Relations with the Host Country this morning, delegates expressed concerns from delegates that the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles, two years since its inception, had still not fully resolved their perennial parking problems.  Compounded with that were delays in the processing of official entry visa applications.

While acknowledging that some measured progress in addressing those concerns had been made over the previous years, speakers said new ones had emerged to which they wished to draw the attention of the United States, including delays in clearing official delegations at points of entry due to newly introduced customs clearance formalities, and the issue of photographing and fingerprinting of delegations on entering.

The representative of Mali said the disagreements expressed by his delegation last year regarding the parking programme still stood, although he was grateful to the United States for facilitating an enabling environment for it to conduct its work.  He said response to complaints raised with regard to parking tickets had often been slow in coming.  On screening, he commended the diligence and great care with which those requests had been given and declared that the overall programme had been successful.  In that connection, he proposed that screening benefits should be extended to other staff in missions.  He further urged the host country to give serious consideration to exempting more people coming into the United States from the requirement for fingerprinting and photographing “for the dignity” of such persons.

The representative of the United States explained that the new measurers had been necessitated by the events of 11 September 2001, and were intended to enhance security.  But he stressed that from inception the new measures had excluded diplomatic heads and all G-4 visa holders both in missions, as well as United Nations staff holding such visas, from such screening.  The United States was doing everything it could to facilitate the work of all missions.

The representative of the Russian Federation regretted that the parking programme continued to have “gaps”, which had rendered the programme non-functional.  The Mission’s concerns in that regard had been transmitted to the host Government in the hope that both the United States and New York City would help resolve the matter.  Since the introduction of the programme, the Mission had written and even phoned over the “hotline” to relay the list of violators of the parking programme outside of its Mission, but no action had been taken.  The Mission continued to experience the same problems with parking as it had in previous years, even though it was making every effort to cooperate with both the host country and the host city to reach an amicable solution.  To that end, the Mission had continued to forward to the host country evidence of such violations.

On delays in processing entry visas, he appealed for a review of the application deadlines set by the United States, especially if they involved official delegations.  He said some Russian official delegations had missed some programmes because their visa applications had not been approved in time to enable them to participate, and appealed for more flexibility in the consideration of such applications, saying that was the obligation of the host country. Expressing the Mission’s gratitude to the United States Mission in New York, which he said had given his Mission tremendous assistance in granting visas, he asked that the present deadline be reduced for official delegations, explaining that sometimes unforeseen circumstances necessitated last-minute visa applications.

The Unites States representative pointed out that the Russian Federation faced a kind of “Catch 22” situation, because of the Mission’s location across from both the police and fire stations.  He thought they would consider their situation the best possible location to be and, thus, to their advantage.  Acknowledging that the Mission’s correspondence and photographs had been received and looked at, the representative reassured the Mission that he believed the City of New York had tried to resolve that issue.  In his opinion, a trilateral meeting with the Mission guaranteed better results than a discussion at this morning’s meeting, which was also attended by the city’s Deputy Commissioner for the United Nations and Consular Corps.

Regarding Mali’s parking concerns, he also suggested resolving those amicably between the Mission and the City.  In both cases, he believed that to be the best course to take, rather than in that meeting.  On cars whose registrations might not be non-renewed based on tickets received by other cars, the City took the position that if a ticket was received by car by a member of the mission, that car’s number was not renewed.  He went on to explain procedures followed in renewal of licenses for missions whose staff or mission vehicles received parking tickets.

On fingerprinting, the new programme US Visit required that those entering the country from abroad were subjected to fingerprinting.  However, holders of “G” visas were not subjected to photo and fingerprinting requirements, he said.  If there was any G visa holder that had been subjected to that, the United States would like to know about such cases, because that was not supposed to be happening.  Responding to concerns about prompt clearance of official delegates, raised by the representative of the Russian Federation, he explained that three officers were dedicated to processing such visas and were doing everything they could -- to the extent that a large number of visas were indeed approved within the required 15 days. 

With the additional measures put in place since September 2001, he added, there were instances where visas had indeed taken longer, and the Mission in New York worked particularly hard with the Russian Mission, especially when applications concerned visas for officials travelling to attend meetings.  He urged those coming to meetings to apply well in advance to avoid any delays.

The representative of Nepal, speaking as an observer, also felt the issue needed reconsideration.  He asked that, in exceptional circumstances, such applications be considered positively.

Speaking under other matters, the representative of the Russian Federation drew attention to a situation that, he said, had arisen since the introduction of new customs procedures at points of entry.  Those new procedures, he said, took up to one to two-and-a-half hours and affected even the departure of aircraft.  A number of official Russian delegations had complained about those new procedures, and he sought the reasons for the introductions of those new regulations from the United States.

The United States representative replied that the issue was one which he could only address in part.  Among the focuses of the Committee were the facilities that the host country and city made available to members of missions and the employees of the United Nations.  The more general issues of airline arrivals, he thought, were outside of the Committee’s area of work.  He said the host country considered the issue of G-visa holders’ clearance a serious matter and, as such, planned to have discussions with authorities at JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirport to try and see what might be done to resolve problems related to G-4 visa holders.

Following up on the same issue, the representative of Costa Rica asked the host country to extend the review by looking at other entry points, as well, such as Miami.

Before concluding, the Chairman informed the Committee that he intended to convene the next meeting before the end of the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly.

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.

* *** *