ENTRY VISAS, NEW AIRPORT SECURITY MEASURES AMONG ISSUES RAISED IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE

Committee on Relations

 with Host Country

225^th Meeting (AM)

ENTRY VISAS, NEW AIRPORT SECURITY MEASURES AMONG

ISSUES RAISED IN HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE

Problems related to entry visas and new airport security screenings were the dominant topics, as the Committee on Relations with the Host Country met this morning.  Also discussed were difficulties encountered by the use of diplomatic tax exemption cards and the travel restrictions imposed on the delegations of certain United Nations Missions.

On the issue of entry visas, several delegates complained that their country’s participation in United Nations meetings had been impeded by delays or denials of visas by the United States authorities.  They said such actions were in breach of the host country’s responsibilities under the Headquarters Agreement.

The representative of the United States said that misunderstandings most often occurred when the visas were applied for in capitals.  In cases of difficulties, he encouraged Missions to deal directly with the Host Country division of the United States Mission, here in New York.

As for the new airport security measures, several delegations recounted “humiliating” experiences by their high-ranking officials with “secondary” screenings and pointed out that they had voluntarily submitted to initial standard screenings, despite the diplomatic privileges and immunities they were entitled to under international treaties.  One delegate suggested that a United States State Department official be assigned to an airport to respond to problems on site.  

The Committee had before it a letter from Cuba (A/AC.154/362) protesting the denial of a visa to the President of Cuba’s National Assembly to attend the second World Conference of Speakers of Parliament held at United Nations Headquarters, from 7 to 9 September 2005.  The letter stated that the pretext for the denial of visas was that the World Conferences of Speakers of Parliament were “private meetings that are not covered by the Agreements on the United Nations Headquarters”.  The Cuban letter noted that the Conference was jointly organized by the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, according to a General Assembly resolution adopted in November 2004.   Cuba also recounted that a visa had been similarly denied in 2000, as well for the first World Conference.

The United States, in its response to the letter (A/AC.154/363), cited the legal opinion given by the United Nations Legal Counsel five years ago that held that the first World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments was hosted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and that the denial of entry visas to invitees of the Conference would not constitute a violation of the host country’s obligations under the Headquarters Agreement.  The United States also pointed out that visas were granted to the Cuban delegation, including the President of the Cuban National Assembly, to the 60^th United Nations General Assembly and the High-Level Event.  The letter added that the United States looks forward to a time when conditions are such that the visa restrictions on Cuban Government officials and employees can be lifted.

However, in today’s meeting, the delegate of Cuba noted that, in the meantime, the Inter-Parliamentary Union had been granted observer status in the General Assembly and that the Assembly, in a 2004 resolution endorsing the World Conference, had included a request that the United States grant visas to the participants as a matter of courtesy.  For months prior to the Parliamentary meeting, the United States had been assuring the President of the National Assembly that a visa would be issued.  A visa was only issued at the moment when the last possible flight to make the World Conference had left.  “Everybody knows there are no direct commercial flights between the United States and Cuba.  I think the delay was hardly an accident”, he said.

While Cuba was grateful for the efforts of the United States Mission, in particular personal intercessions of its representative to the Host Country Committee, the Cuban delegate said he also disagreed with the opinion that the head of a National Parliament should apply under the category of a tourist visa.  That type of visa was inappropriate.

Stating that the General Assembly was a more authoritative source than opinions of the United Nations Legal Counsel, he proposed that the Host Country Committee recommend that the Assembly explicitly state that United Nations-related conferences should be covered under the Headquarters Agreement.

The representative of Venezuela also complained that visas for key staff of the country’s President, including some of his security detail and his medical team, had been delayed, resulting in the President missing the inaugural opening of the 2005 United Nations Summit.  President Chavez had received several threats against him and the persons denied visas were the ones of most importance to the President’s safety, she said.

The delegates of the Russian Federation, Libya and Syria took issue with the lengthy time frame required for visa applications.  The representative of Libya said the usual four weeks’ notice was an excessive amount of time.  The process had also prevented Libya’s speaker of the Parliament from attending the World Speakers Conference.  Moreover, its Foreign Minister had applied for a visa to the United Nations Summit on 13 July, but only received it on 6 September.

In response, the representative of the United States said that new security concerns had lengthened the time frame for issuance of visas from 15 to now 20 days.  Nevertheless, many visas had been granted overnight.  Speaking specifically about Cuban and Venezuelan experiences, he said the situation had improved through better communication and coordination with those United Nations Missions.

He said that, of the 144 Venezuelan visa applications, 135 had been issued.  No visas had been denied, although several were pending for technical reasons.  As to the safety of President Chavez, he said that it was the obligation of the United States Government to protect all visiting Heads of State.  “The United States Secret Service protected President Chavez.  They did it well and we are very proud of it”, he said.

He added that the United States Mission was unaware of the problems some delegates had raised and suggested that, in future, Member States should contact the Host Country section of the United States Mission which could intercede on their behalf.  “It is up to the Permanent Missions to inform the United States of their problems.  We will do everything we can”, he said.

Concerning the treatment of diplomats at airports, the representative of Venezuela told of an incident at La Guardia Airport where the Venezuelan Permanent Representative and his wife had been singled out for a “harsh and humiliating” search because their boarding passes had been flagged by security.  The airport personnel had explained that their tickets had been marked with a special sign necessitating a special screening.  She called for a communiqué repudiating the incident and for a request be made to the Host Country to adhere to the relevant international treaties covering the status of diplomats.

Jamaica’s Foreign Minister had had a similar experience, its representative said, adding that Jamaican Permanent Representative no longer went to the airport to meet visiting dignitaries because of the treatment he, himself, was subjected to there.  However, she noted that there had been great improvement in the treatment of diplomats by immigration and secret service personnel for the Summit and said she hoped that this would be the norm for the future.

The delegate of the Mali also thanked the United States Mission for the assistance received by its presidential delegation during the Summit.  He was still awaiting, though, a response to an earlier complaint about the treatment of other diplomats at the airport.

Malaysia’s representative noted that there was an attempt to subject some of its cabinet ministers to the screenings. 

The Libyan delegate said that sometimes the extra searches seemed arbitrary and based on the whims of airport personnel.  Humiliating treatment often seemed deliberate and reflected poorly on the United States Government, even though the Government might not bear the responsibility for it.

The Syrian representative said that, as diplomats, they appreciated the security concerns and submitted willingly to the screenings.  The problem was, however, when they were singled out for the second and more intrusive screening.  He recalled an incident where an airport employee had chosen him for a “random” hand search of his briefcase, even though the employee knew he was a diplomat and had voluntarily undergone the x-ray screening.  He recommended that a knowledgeable person from the United States State Department be permanently assigned to the airport to help and handle situations on the spot.  There should be greater coordination within the United States security agencies to ensure proper observances of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Affairs, as well as the treaty on their Privileges and Immunities of Diplomats.

Responding, the United States delegate expressed gratitude for the acknowledgement of the recent improvement.  It showed that the United States Mission was working hard to respond to issues raised in the Host Committee.  He was sorry that the Ambassador of Venezuela and his wife had had problems and suggested that the Venezuelan and United States Mission discuss and coordinate more for the future to avoid similar occurrences.

In general, he suggested that diplomats go to the counter and identify themselves as diplomats and request to be exempted from further screening.  The United States received very few complaints.  “I think it is because most diplomats understand the measures are there for their safety, as well.  They are for the benefit of all the public.  It is not meant to pick on any particular Mission or country.  Nevertheless, we suggest that you call us as soon as the incident occurs, when we can possibly to do something about it”, he said.

After several delegates recounted experiences in which vendors, in particular the utility companies, refused to honour the diplomatic tax exemption cards, the representative of the United States recommended that the particulars of the instances be brought to the attention of the Office of Foreign Missions, which had a division devoted to sales tax exemption issues.  That division spoke frequently with vendors and was best placed to resolve the problems.

Responding to the representatives of Jamaica and Syria, who spoke of the inconvenience of having to carry around and provide tax forms to vendors, a practice which was not required in other parts of the United States, such as Washington, D.C., the representative of the United States said that a request had had been for New York to abandon the practice as well, but the request had been denied.  Once again, though, he did not consider the matter a closed issue and the United States Mission would continue to pursue it.  He also pointed out that reimbursement of taxes already was possible through filling out a form.  Also, an investigation had revealed that some Missions were not taking advantage of the provision that each Mission was allowed two official tax exemption cards and he encouraged those who did not currently possess the two cards to contact the Office of Foreign Missions.

On the question of travel restrictions on diplomats of certain missions, the representative of the Russian Federation said those curbs affected some staff of his mission, as well as some United Nations secretariat staff from his country.  The ban was discriminatory, whether permission was sought or the United States Mission was informed in advance about travel plans.  He hoped the policy which imposed the 25-mile restriction on travel would be reviewed by the United States authorities in Washington.

The representative of the United States, replying, said the concerns of the Russian representative would be passed to Washington.  He observed that the regime of travel restrictions was under constant review, as he had told previous meetings of the Committee whenever the issue had been raised.

On other matters, Marcela Calderón of Costa Rica, replacing Emilia Castro de Barish of the same country who recently retired, was elected Rapporteur.  Delegations expressed their appreciation for “the outstanding work” provided by Ambassador Castro de Barish during her many years of service as Rapporteur to the Committee.  One described her as an “icon” in the Committee who worked hard to keep Committee issues discussed on a friendly basis.  

In general, the Host Committee oversees practical matters connected with diplomats accredited to the United Nations, such as entry visas, immigration and custom procedures, housing, parking for Mission personnel, insurance, education and health. The Committee also examines problems with financial indebtedness, privileges and immunities as well as public relations to publicize the functions and status of Permanent Missions to the United Nations.

The Committee will meet again on Monday, 17 October, to adopt its report for submission to the Sixth Committee (Legal).

* *** *

For information media • not an official record