Committee on Relations

with Host Country

229^th Meeting (AM)

Host Country Committee Approves Proposal for Review of Diplomatic Parking Programme

Also Discusses Travel Restrictions, Diplomatic Privileges, Visa Questions

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country today approved a proposal to undertake another review of the diplomatic parking programme, in place since November 2002, and to make the results known at its meeting in late January 2007.

Committee Chairman, Andreas D. Mavroyiannis ( Cyprus), also offered a timetable for the review, the second since the latest diplomatic parking programme for New York City entered into force on 1 November 2002.  Under that proposal, delegations would respond to a questionnaire by the end of November.  Their feedback would be shared with representatives of the City and the host country by mid-December, and the latter authorities would provide their comments to the Committee by mid-January 2007.

The Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles, as it is formally titled, was initially greeted with cautious optimism and was the result of several, highly publicized, exchanges between the host country authorities and United Nations diplomats.  During the nearly four years of operation of the current programme, certain problems had emerged, and delegations now sought its further review.

Also, on the Committee’s agenda today were issues of travel restrictions, visas, diplomatic privileges and immunities, the election of a Vice-Chair, and other matters.  The Committee was established by the General Assembly in 1971 to deal with a full range of issues concerning the relationship between the host country and the United Nations community.  In addition to the above issues, those topics include the security of the missions and their personnel; immigration and customs procedures and taxation; diplomatic indebtedness; housing and transportation; insurance, education, and health matters; and public relations issues with the host city.  The Committee meets every two months, although emergency meetings can be requested by any United Nations Member State at any time.  All States may participate in the Committee’s work as observers, but, only Committee members can vote.

On the question of travel restrictions, the representative of the Russian Federation expressed the view that the practice of limiting to a 25-mile radius the travel of Russian diplomats was discriminatory and not in line with international law norms.  Similarly, Cuba’s delegate expressed her deepest concern at that restriction, drawing attention to the resulting inability of Cuban diplomats to travel to United Nations-related events held outside the 25-mile radius.  That practice placed Cuban officials at a disadvantage when it came to negotiating and adopting documents at the United Nations.  Thus, the policy was unjust, selective, discriminatory and politically motivated, and it contravened the obligations of the host country agreement and the international legal instrument relating to diplomatic immunities and privileges.

The United States representative said his Mission was mindful of a letter from the Cuban Mission to both his Mission and the Committee Chair, regarding the inability of Cuban diplomats to attend a recent meeting in New Jersey, and his Mission would provide a written response, as soon as that was finalized.  It would have been much easier if the meeting had been held within the 25-mile radius.  As for the comments made by the Russian delegate, he said that, regarding the remaining restrictions imposed on certain members of that Mission at certain levels, only required written notification to the host country that travel would take place would be required.  Discussions were ongoing between the Russian Federation and the United States Government.  The host country’s position on travel restrictions was well known and had not changed over the years.  He had discussed that position during recent meetings, and he had nothing more to add today.

Concerning visas, Saudi Arabia’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the tremendous delays in Riyadh -– sometimes four to six months -- for fulfilling visa requests, including for students and Government personnel.  Visas for household workers, or G-5 visas, could only be issued overseas now at the United States Embassies.  Often, a G-5 visa holder lived in a remote province or village and, had to spend much of his or her vacation time travelling to and from the American Embassy in Riyadh to secure a renewal.  Venezuela’s representative said her Mission had encountered similar problems, and expressed specific concern that Heads of State and Government wishing to attend the General’s Assembly’s sixty-first session in September would not have difficulty entering the United States.

Responding to Venezuela’s concern first, the United States speaker said that, in the coming days, his Mission would be issuing a circular diplomatic note to all Permanent Missions and observer offices reminding them of the importance of applying early for visas for the Assembly session.  He had not heard specifically about any visa concerns from her Mission, but, he invited it to contact the United States Mission in that regard so that it could expedite the entry of individuals who might have had problems last year.  He certainly did not want them to have problems for the second year in a row.

As for the concern raised by Saudi Arabia’s representative, he said that, student and tourist visas were not within the Committee’s mandate since that was not a United Nations-related issue, but, he would pass on the concerns about the delays for those Saudi applicants, in the spirit of cooperation.  The United States was obligated under the Headquarters Agreement to facilitate, or not to hinder, the entry of representatives of United Nations Members for official business; however, the question of G-5 visas for domestic servants was a bit more complicated, and the Agreement did not address those.

It was true, he continued, that for some years, the United States Mission and the State Department had reissued or renewed G-5 visas, as a favour and as a way of facilitating a Mission’s work.  Unfortunately, the regulations about G-5 visas changed several years ago.  Following much publicity about trouble between some in the diplomatic community and G-5 visa holders, the State Department and United States Mission began to take that very seriously.  Once the Homeland Security Department became operational, visa interviews were required, and the application process essentially had become more complicated and time-consuming.  It was contrary to regulations for visa officers of the United States Mission to call in G-5 employees to interview for the reissuance of their visas, so it was no longer reissuing those visas in New York; it was not looking “behind” that relationship between (diplomatic) employer and employee.

When the Venezuelan delegation commented that her Mission’s top delegates had not been treated properly at United States airports, the United States representative said it was difficult for him to judge that treatment, but, the Director of United States Immigration had said that it was of paramount importance to him and the Department of Homeland Security that visitors to the United States -– whether diplomats, or tourists, or students –- be treated with dignity upon their arrival.  So, he was interested to know exactly the nature of what was occurring at the airports in that regard.  There was an agreement with the Venezuelan Mission to ease the comings and goings of Venezuelan diplomats, and he would do that for diplomats and non-diplomats, and for any nationality of any rank.

There were various reasons why air travellers were stopped either upon departure or arrival, he added.  Often those were random, but sometimes, they were not.  When the Mission had information, it did what it could, but it needed specific information on the traveller, the flight, the date and the time, at least two days ahead of time.  He thought the Committee members realized the issues at stake here –- the United States was not the only country that had security measures in place at airports.  The United States Mission had done and would continue to do all it could in that regard, but no one could expect it to foresee a problem, and it was not fair to the travelling public for a diplomat to be exempted from security screening.  That did not happen in other countries and it could not happen here.  At the same time, the United States was committed to easing the situation.

Once again, the representative of the Russian Federation raised the issue of a traffic incident that had occurred on 22 April, resulting in the return of one of its diplomats to his country.  He wished to know how a diplomat driving a car with diplomatic license plates and having his diplomatic identification on hand was arrested and handcuffed and led to a police precinct, where he was detained for a few hours.  He expected documentation on the matter and an apology.

The representative of the United States reiterated that the question was moot because there would be no prosecution, as he had explained at the last Committee meeting.  The man had been charged with seven different summonses, including driving while intoxicated and injuring a New York City police officer.  The United States did not, as the Russian speaker had said, insist that the diplomat leave the country, but whenever a person of diplomatic status was accused of driving while intoxicated, the United States Mission requested a waiver of that person’s immunity so that the charges could be adjudicated according to state law.

The man had returned to Moscow on his own, but it was likely that if diplomatic immunity had been waived, the United States would have asked him to return to the Russian Federation.

As for the provision of documents, the United States Mission had never agreed to provide the Russian Mission with documentation on that case, other than that which the diplomat provided his Mission himself.  Charging documents and police reports, according to the laws of New York State, were given to the accused and/or the person’s lawyers at the time of arraignment.  In this case, there was no judicial arraignment because the person had left the United States, had left the jurisdiction.  Thus, there was no possibility of arraignment, and no possibility of giving the Russian Mission the documents it requested.  So, the United States Mission had no option but to abide by New York State law.

Replacing Committee Vice-Chairperson, Krassimira Beshkova ( Bulgaria), who left New York after several years of committed service, was Branimir Zaimov, also from Bulgaria.  He was elected today by acclamation.

Also in attendance at today’s meeting were:  Marjorie Tiven, Commissioner of the New York City Commission for the United Nations; and Bradford E. Billet, Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Commission.

The next meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country will be held in September at a date and time to be announced in the Journal.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record