Committee on Relations

with Host Country

228^th Meeting (PM)

Travel restrictions, diplomatic immunities, parking, visas

 

among issues raised in host country committee

 

Host country travel restrictions, diplomatic parking regulations, the issuance of visas for domestic workers, and diplomatic privileges and immunities were among the matters taken up during this afternoon’s meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country.

On the issue of travel restrictions, Juana Elena Ramos Rodriguez (Cuba) expressed profound concern at the fact that the host country authorities had denied the request of Rodolfo Benitez, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of Cuba, to travel beyond 25 miles of Columbus Circle in New York City in order to participate in a seminar organized by the International Peace Academy and held in West Point, New York.

As noted in a letter from Cuba to the Committee (document A/AC.154/366), the seminar was designed to address the needs and interests of the Permanent Missions to the United Nations and promote professional development in the area of peace and security.  She said that, while 40 diplomats of Permanent Missions were selected to participate, including the Cuban Mission, only the Cuban diplomat was not allowed to attend, due to the denial by the host country authorities.

She noted that permits for travel requested by officials of Permanent Missions were subject to the Host Country Agreement between the United Nations and the United States.  She also pointed out that restrictions on travel beyond the 25-mile zone, which were arbitrary and for political reasons, were an interference with the appropriate functioning of Missions.  They ran counter to the obligations of the host country, in accordance with the Host Country Agreement.

Echoing those sentiments, Gennady Kuzmin ( Russian Federation) stated that such restrictions were discriminatory and not in accordance with the fundamental principles of diplomatic relations.  In addition, Laila Taj El Dine ( Venezuela) hoped the necessary measures would be adopted to prevent any interference with the functioning of Permanent Missions.  Travel restrictions were a form of such interference.  Like her Russian colleague, she believed such measures were discriminatory, unfair, selective and in pursuit of a unilateral political aim.

The position of the host country on travel restrictions was well known, stated Russell Graham ( United States).  The establishment of such restrictions on a few countries was not arbitrary and political, but done for national security.  It was well known that the United States Mission did not restrict official travel, and did not interfere with the proper working of Permanent Missions.  The travel that was restricted was personal travel.  He reminded the Committee that the host country was reviewing travel restrictions on an ongoing basis.

Regarding the case mentioned by the Cuban delegation, he referred the Committee to the response of the United States, which was contained in document A/AC.154/367.  After careful consideration, the decision to deny Mr. Benitez’s travel was made because the travel was not for official United Nations business.  The International Peace Academy was not a part of the United Nations system.

Responding to that, Ms. Ramos Rodriguez ( Cuba) stated that the presence of the Cuban diplomat at the seminar would have been useful, as the discussions were relevant to matters on the United Nations agenda.  She had never understood why the attendance of Cuban diplomats at events outside the 25-mile zone on matters on the United Nations agenda should constitute a security problem for the host country.  Cuban diplomats had never committed acts in violation of the security of the host country.

In relation to diplomatic privileges and immunities, Mr. Kuzmin ( Russian Federation) referred to a car accident involving a Russian attaché, Ilya Morozov, on 25 April, and about which some questions were still pending.  For instance, it took the United States just one day to accuse the diplomat of a serious crime, namely that of attacking a policeman, and then demanding that he be deprived of his diplomatic immunities.  Yet, although almost a month had elapsed, the United States had so far been unable to provide his delegation with some official documentation justifying that “claim of guilt”.

Specifically, he wondered how a diplomat driving a car with diplomatic plates and having all documentation, including his diplomatic passport, could have been subjected to arrest, handcuffed, taken to a police station and detained there for several hours.  Article 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic matters and the 1947 Headquarters Agreement said that diplomats were personally inviolable and could not be arrested or detained; those words were printed on the back of the diplomatic passport.  He could not accept the argument, therefore, that there had been a regrettable mistake and that the police that had made the arrest had not read the Vienna Convention and were not aware of the norms of international law controlling the status of diplomats.

The Russian Federation had insisted that its diplomats respect all local laws, including while driving, but, unfortunately, incidents did occur, he said.  In Moscow alone, over the past two years, Russian law enforcement agencies had recorded 25 serious traffic violations by United States diplomats.  Russia had sought to resolve those on a bilateral and cooperative basis and had not allowed speculative articles in the press.  He expected the same treatment from other countries.

Mr. Graham ( United States) said the host country had not said it would deprive the Russian attaché of his privileges and immunities.  Rather, it had asked the Russian Federation to waive those, so that he could face the charges before him.  The speaker today had also mentioned that the United States should have taken care to avoid press articles about the incident.  The United States had a very free and very vigorous press, and that was not possible, nor would the United States ever want to intervene in that regard.

The nature of the incident, coupled with the coverage it received in the press, and deservedly so in New York, had led the United States to believe that it should take quick action with a Mission with whom it had very close and good relations, he continued.  That was partially to assure that the wheels of justice moved quickly and partially to allow the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to make a quick decision in a way that minimized any embarrassment.

He recalled that the United States had sent a diplomatic note to the Mission on Tuesday, 25 April, asking the Russian Federation to waive Mr. Morozov’s immunity, and the next day it received a diplomatic note saying they would not do that.  Mr. Morozov was now back in Russia.  So, the question of what charges might have been brought against him or what documentation might exist in his case seemed to be “moot” now.

On the issue of diplomatic parking, Cheick Sidi Diarra ( Mali) reiterated his position that, despite the fact that his Mission’s personnel strictly obeyed all laws, it objected to the parking programme adopted in November 2002, which was still in force.  That negatively affected the movement of diplomats in carrying out their tasks at the United Nations and elsewhere.  He, therefore, requested that a new review be undertaken of the matter.  In practice, the programme was more restrictive than the parking fines issued by the New York City police.  The programme should be more flexible, so as to improve both the working and private lives of diplomats in New York.

Turning to the issue of body searches at airports, he said that the host country had responded previously that it did not have the resources to extend the exemption from body searches to heads of diplomatic missions.  Mali’s suggestion was to provide those heads of missions with documentation to identify them.  That could be used at airports to facilitate their speedy transfer.

Maria Valencia ( Saudi Arabia) raised the issue of the repeated denial of G-5 visas, specifically for housekeeping staff to be employed by Missions.  In the past two years, such visas were refused for persons from Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia.  The issuance of visas was discretionary in nature, but their constant denial for diplomats of the Permanent Mission, even though the documentation was in place in accordance with the guidelines, had been very difficult and inconvenient for the diplomats and families concerned. United States citizens working in Saudi Arabia rarely encountered such problems.  She hoped for continued good relations between the two host countries.

Ms. Ramos Rodriguez (Cuba), expressing appreciation for the assistance of the United States Mission in processing visas, added, however, that sometimes there were delays in processing, including placing the visas in the passports.  On several occasions, that had prevented the officials from travelling or from attending the meetings on time.

Mr. Graham ( United States) was pleased that cooperation with Cuba on visa matters was very, very good, and he thanked the delegate for her comments.  There was always room for improvement, however, and discussions were ongoing between the two Missions in that regard.  There was a problem with incoming phone calls to the Mission on visa matters, owing to a crushing workload.  In an attempt to limit those calls, they would be taken only during certain periods.  In the event of an emergency only, he presented delegations with two phone numbers for their use.

On the issue of G-5 visas, he explained in detail the application process by which a domestic servant applicant was granted such a visa.  The nationality of the applicant was not a criterion for visa approval, he stressed, but G-5 visa applicants were subjected to all United States immigration requirements, including careful review of the contracts and assurance that those personnel would leave the country when such employment had concluded.

Attending today’s meeting were Marjorie Tiven, New York City Commissioner for the United Nations and Consular Corps, and Bradford E. Billet, Deputy Commissioner, as well as Larry D. Johnson, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record