Committee on Relations

with Host Country

232^nd Meeting (AM)

HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE REVIEWS IMPLEMENTATION OF DIPLOMATIC PARKING PROGRAMME

Also Considers Tax Obligations of Mission Employees, Issuance of Visas

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country this morning took note of the results of a survey among Member States on the implementation of the 2002 Diplomatic Parking Programme and the comments thereon by representatives of the Host Country and the City of New York, as well as of delegates.

According to the “provisional conclusions” on the second review of the implementation of the Parking Programme, the Committee would invite the Host Country and the City of New York to consider the results of the review and statements made and to identify ways in which the implementation of the Parking Programme could be improved.  The Committee might return to the matter later in the year when it was preparing its official recommendations to the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal).

The representative of the United States expressed appreciation to those 66 missions who had replied to the Diplomatic Programme Implementation Survey, saying that only through those replies could the Host Country address the concerns expressed.  As the questionnaire had been designed and tabulated by the United Nations Secretariat, he said he was puzzled regarding one delegate’s view that the tabulation of results had been biased.  He drew attention to the Host Country’s comments on the survey results, which had been circulated among Member States.

In those comments, the Host Country had expressed its disappointment that only 66 missions had responded.  The United States believed that the survey results indicated that the implementation of the Parking Programme continued to be a success.  The fact that 126 missions did not reply indicated that those missions did not encounter problems or that those problems were not frequent or significant enough to warrant a response.  As for the narrative comments provided, many of the problems described did not come under the purview of the Programme but were due to general traffic problems in New York.

Also, according to the Host Country’s comments, assistance had been provided in many cases, but providing assistance was not the same as dismissing all tickets or meeting all requests.  The United States Mission would continue to provide appropriate assistance whenever it could.  It was, furthermore, advisable that missions put their concerns in writing.

Marjorie Tiven, New York City Commissioner for the United Nations and Consular Corps, said that, overall, she had been pleased to see that most respondents had been satisfied with the improvements in the Parking Programme.  More than half of respondents found it easier to park now than before the Programme had started in 2002.  Assistance had been provided to the 86.7 per cent of the missions who had asked for it.  She was gratified that the adjudication process was working and assured delegates that mitigating factors were being considered. 

Addressing the matter of unauthorized parking in diplomatic spaces, she said a new telephone hotline had been dedicated for diplomats only:  (718) 383 6956, manned 24 hours, 7 days a week.  In October 2006, the dedicated teams of the police had begun to proactively ticket and tow illegally parked vehicles.  As a result, some 2,500 vehicles had been ticketed and 79 vehicles had been towed.  Expressing regret that there was a perception among diplomats that their cases received worse treatment than non-diplomatic ones, she said that vehicles of the average New Yorkers got seven times the amount of summonses for parking in diplomatic spaces than were issued to diplomats anywhere in the City.  However, “if we do not know about it, we cannot fix it”. 

The representative of Mali, whose delegation had initiated the exercise, said he was pleased that 66 countries had responded to the questionnaire.  It was nevertheless worrying to see that out of those responses, some 71 per cent had seen a “difference in understanding” between missions and the Host Country regarding implementation of the Parking Programme.  It was also interesting to see that some 45.5 per cent believed that the treatment given to diplomatic vehicles was the same as that given non-diplomatic vehicles, while the same percentage of respondents -- 45.5 per cent –- thought that diplomatic vehicles were treated worse than non-diplomatic vehicles.

Still, not all the news was bad, particularly regarding the percentage of dismissed parking tickets.  He stressed that more than 120 United Nations missions had not replied to the survey and, however, not agreed with the Host Country’s assessment that such non-response automatically meant that those missions were “satisfied” with the Diplomatic Parking Programme.  One third of the Organization’s Membership had replied, and some 71 per cent of those replies had been expressions of concern.  That was perhaps the most important fact to bring away from the exercise.

When other delegations took the floor, several agreed that, while the exercise had been very detailed, it could not allow the wider Membership to conclude that the Parking Programme was a “success”, as the Host Country’s comments suggested.  If the Programme was so successful, why did the Membership have to spend so much time discussing it? one speaker asked. 

Another speaker said that the question of parking in New York City was not a matter that came solely under the purview of City officials or the Host Country itself, but was directly related to international rules and norms and the relevant Geneva treaties on diplomatic relations, privileges and immunities.  Diplomatic transportation was an important area of diplomatic relations and it would be up to the Committee to decide how to move forward.  Since 50 per cent of the Member States that had replied had attached written comments, it was necessary for the Committee to study the results of the survey and compile the opinions included in those written responses.  One speaker proposed that the format of parking permits issued to the heads of mission, currently a windshield sticker, be changed so that it could be used by other mission cars in case of the absence of a head of mission. 

Other Matters

The observer representative of Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union, addressed the issue of the “Settlement Initiative for Employees of Foreign Embassies, Foreign Consular Offices and International Organizations in the United States” that was currently being pursued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  The IRS, through that Initiative, aimed to resolve income tax matters concerning local staff of missions and to unwind the participation of such staff in erroneously established Simplified Employee Pension/Individual Retirement Account (SEP/IRA) plans.  European Union missions felt responsible for helping to find a solution that was somewhat more balanced than the current unilateral Settlement Initiative by the IRS.

He said that many of the employees had relied in good faith upon formal or informal advice from their employers, tax consultants and/or the IRS to fulfil their tax obligations -- a complicated matter.  The sudden urgency by the IRS in seeking full tax compliance for the past three years had caught many local employees by surprise.  As the deadline of 30 March would make it difficult to take appropriate steps in order to regularize the situation, he proposed that the deadline of participation in the Settlement Initiative be extended to 30 June.

Even though the Committee was not a forum to discuss taxation matters, he appealed to the Host Country to take a forward-looking approach as the issue had caused considerable concern within the United Nations community.  Many of the problems had been caused by a lack of legal clarity.  It would therefore be preferable to focus on how a legal framework could be established and explained, so as to ensure that all employees filed their taxes correctly in the future.

The representative of Spain, associating himself with the European Union statement, said the matter had come up in a sudden and unexpected way which had caused concern.  He had only learned of the matter when the trade unions of the Spanish civil service had called a strike in all offices of the Spanish State in the United States from 12 to 14 February.  Before that, the Mission had not been notified by the IRS.

The representative of the Host Country said that his Mission looked at the matter as a non-diplomatic issue and therefore not an issue for debate in the Committee.  The people affected by the IRS were either American citizens or green-card holders who were subjected to jurisdiction of the United States.  His Mission had first learned of the matter from the German Mission.  In November 2006 the IRS had contacted the State Department, whereupon embassies in Washington had been informed.  The IRS Initiative had not then been announced in New York, as it had not been clear if the matter concerned local staff of permanent missions.  The Office of Foreign Missions had sent out faxes to missions three weeks ago. 

He said that, because permanent missions in New York and their members had not been informed in a timely basis, the 30 March deadline would be changed, so that individuals could take advantage of the amnesty.  They only had to give their name; forms did not have to be filed.  He would take the concerns expressed to Washington, but he was not in a position to say anything more than take note of what the missions had said.  Responding to suggestions of Spain, Qatar and Indonesia, he said he was not in a position to organize a briefing.  The information his Mission had received had been very sketchy.  He announced that the issue had come to the personal attention of the Secretary of State, who would take up the matter with the Secretary of the Treasury.

Also under “other matters” the representative of Jamaica, participating as an observer, said her delegation still faced a problem regarding non-diplomatic vehicles being parked in its Mission’s parking spaces.  Police officers often ignored that fact and ticketed vehicles registered to Jamaican diplomats when they were forced to park elsewhere.  She was also concerned about repeated notifications on parking violations by a Jamaican official who was not even in New York when the violation was supposed to have taken place.

The representative of Belarus, also an observer, said his delegation had previously expressed serious concerns about passport controls at JFK International Airport, and the United States Mission had responded to its request and had taken urgent measures to rectify the matter.

Iran’s representative raised the issue of the Host Country’s failure to issue visas for Iranian diplomats to participate in United Nations meetings.  That contravened the Headquarters Agreement.  He registered his profound concern that Iranian delegations had been denied the participation in the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development, and the Commission on the Status of Women.  The denial of such visas was unjustified in that the proper applications had been made in a timely manner.  He requested the Committee to do what it could to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that the Host country stood by its international obligations in that regard.

In response, the representative of the United States said he was surprised as he was aware of no Iranian official that had been denied a visa to participate in those two meetings.  The Iranian Mission and the United States Visa Office were in almost daily contact.  He suspected that “something else might be at play”, because a denial of a visa took place at the very highest levels and this was the first he had heard of it.  He said he wished Iran had contacted him before those two meetings and invited the Iranian delegate to speak with him after the meeting to get to the bottom of the matter.

Côte d’Ivoire’s delegate said that his Mission had had some difficulties with a fire and was pleased to announce that thanks to the quick action of the City of New York, the problem had been solved.  He also thanked City authorities for helping his delegation settle a particular legal matter.

Delegates expressed profound appreciation and gratitude for the work and dedication of the former Committee Secretary Patricia Georget and welcomed the new Secretary, Surya Sinha.

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

Among the Host Country Committee’s responsibilities are security of missions and their personnel, oversight of practical matters relating to diplomats accredited to the United Nations, such as entry visas, immigration and custom procedures, housing, parking for mission personnel, insurance, education and health.  It also examines problems concerning financial indebtedness and privileges and immunities, as well as efforts to publicize the functions and status of permanent missions to the United Nations.

The 19 members of the Committee 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 United States.

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

* *** *

For information media • not an official record