Committee on Relations

with Host Country

233^rd Meeting (AM)

travel regulations, immigration, entry visa dominate proceedings

in meeting of host country committee

 

United States Delegate Explains Position, Offers Assurances, Apologies

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country took up the issues of travel regulations, acceleration of immigration and customs procedures, entry visas and other matters this morning.

On the question of travel regulations, Cuba’s representative said the host country had denied a request by two Cuban diplomats for permission to travel beyond the 25-mile radius from Columbus Circle in New York City, in order to participate in an informal meeting of the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, chaired by the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein at Princeton University last month.  The policy of restricting the movements of Cuban diplomats and international officials was unjust, selective, discriminatory and politically motivated.  It also contravened the host country’s obligations under the Headquarters Agreement and the international legal instruments on diplomatic privileges and immunities, to which the United States was a party.  She said that, in a letter from the Chair of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement (document A/AC.154/374), 118 members of that body urged the host country authorities to take the necessary steps to meet the international obligations agreed to by its Government, as well as the recommendations and decisions of the General Assembly on the matter.

Supporting Cuba’s position, the representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation had, on more than one occasion, raised the question of limiting the movements of the staff of a number of permanent missions, including his own, and of Russian citizens working in the Secretariat.  The practice was discriminatory and in violation of international norms.  There was a need to find a solution and the host country had an obligation to create favourable working conditions for the missions.

The representative of the United States said the host country considered all travel requests in a careful manner and on an individual basis.  Representatives of Member States were provided entry for the purpose of official United Nations business, and those who subject to restrictions were not impeded from travelling for official business.  However, the United States had no legal obligation to approve travel outside the 25-mile radius for personal reasons or for non-official United Nations meetings.  As the Princeton meeting had not been an official one, the United States had not been obligated to grant permission and had chosen not to extend that courtesy.

Cuba’s delegate reminded the representative of the United States that attendance at the Princeton meeting was not for purposes other than attending a meeting related to the agenda of the United Nations, one organized by a mission accredited to the Organization.  Moreover, Cuba considered travel permits not as an additional “courtesy”, but rather as the right of every diplomat accredited to the United Nations to enjoy equally.  The United States should comply with international regulations, as appropriate for a State in which the rule of law existed or should exist.

Iran’s representative said the Host Country Agreement provided that the host country should not impede in any way the movements of Member States representatives.  It was a matter of concern that the host country continued to deny Iranian representatives travel permits for meetings of the informal working group on the Crime of Aggression, which placed them at a disadvantage and deprived their Government of its sovereign right to participate in those deliberations.  The travel restrictions by themselves were unjust, discriminatory and politically motivated.  They violated international instruments on diplomatic privileges and immunities, and it was of vital importance that the Committee take the necessary measures to address the situation.

Venezuela’s representative said the incidents described were manifestly politically motivated, noting that the denial of travel permits had been a repeated practice of the host country directed against certain members of the international community.  It was in clear violation of the Host Country Agreement as well as the obligations incumbent on the United States regarding diplomatic representatives.  Cuba, which currently held the Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, had been prevented from representing that Group as well.

In response, the representative of the United States clarified that the Headquarters Agreement required the host country to permit free transit to and from the Headquarters district.  That was a clear obligation, which the United States had met and would continue to meet.

As the Committee turned to immigration and customs procedures, Indonesia’s representative expressed concern about the increasing number of cases in which his Mission’s diplomatic staff had come under persistent scrutiny at United States airports.  Some of them had had to undergo body searches before entering departure gates on account of special marks on their tickets.   Indonesia understood fully the need for security measures, but some people seemed to be subjected to the same scrutiny every single time they wished to travel.  The relevant authorities could advise airline carriers to give prudent consideration to members of diplomatic missions.  Should such procedures be unavoidable for security reasons, they should be conducted on a random basis.

He went on to say that one member of the Indonesian Mission had been experiencing particular difficulties every time he entered the United States.  Requested to undertake a secondary immigration check in a separate room on his last trip in June, he had been informed that he had been listed in a “special registration” procedure.

While fully aware of the importance of stringent measures against possible threats of terrorism, he expressed the hope that the situation could be rectified.   Indonesia was pleased to have received a prompt response from the Department of State with respect to solving the problem with immigration officers.  Such an approach could also be implemented alongside Indonesia’s suggestion about cooperating with the airline operators to put in place a harmonized procedure that would meet expectations on all sides.

Syria’s representative registered a protest against a discriminatory and irresponsible act by immigration and security officials at JFK Airport on 22 June.  Having been subjected to all security measures like all other travellers, his wife and two children had then been called by name and subjected to physical inspection inside the plane, without any explanation.  That incident had scared his family and other passengers in addition to delaying the flight.  The incident demonstrated either disregard or ignorance of the principle of diplomatic privileges and immunities, and it was to be hoped that it would not be repeated.

He said the Syrian delegation had informed the United States Mission and the Host Country Committee of the incident and submitted a protest through the Foreign Ministry in Damascus.  The Syrian Foreign Ministry had accepted by the apology submitted by the American Embassy in Damascus, but some of his luggage had been lost, pieces of which had arrived 10 days after the family’s arrival, intentionally damaged.  Their clothes had been torn by a sharp instrument and chemicals had been poured on them.

In connection with the concerns expressed by Indonesia and Syria, India’s representative suggested that the host country send a reminder to security and immigration officials about the privileges and immunities of diplomats and their families.   Venezuela’s representative recalled the treatment his Foreign Minister had suffered when he had been detained last year.  The host country must issue precise instructions regarding the treatment of diplomats.

Cuba’s representative, expressing regret that such incidents were still taking place, said that, according to resolution 61/41, the Host Country should take all measures to train relevant staff with regard to respect for the immunities and privileges of diplomats.  The representative of the Russian Federation said his country attached great significance to compliance with the privileges and immunities of diplomats, particularly when diplomats passed through airport checkpoints.   Iran’s delegate said the incident involving the spouse and children of Syria’s Ambassador highlighted the importance of training personnel and investigating violations of resolution 61/41.

Addressing first the issue raised by Indonesia, the representative of the United States said that situation had been looked into, and a way forward had been found.  As the situation was of a personal nature, the matter would be taken up with the Indonesian Mission.

Expressing his country’s regret and his personal apologies regarding the incident with the wife and children of Syria’s representative, he said the Department of State had been unable to confirm specific details and responsibility, but its investigation would continue.  The Department of Homeland Security had been asked to remind airport personnel to be more careful with diplomatic travellers.  Because the information provided had not included anything about damage inflicted on the family’s luggage, any additional information that could help the State Department get to the bottom of the “very unfortunate and disturbing” incident was requested.

He added that within a couple of days, the United States Mission would circulate a diplomatic note with an attachment provided by the Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security.  It would indicate that, among other things, specialized training would be given to screening staff in order to accommodate passengers with diplomatic credentials.  The attachment suggested that each United Nations diplomat should present his or her boarding pass with both valid diplomatic passport and blue identification card, indicating United Nations accreditation to the ticket checker stationed outside the security screening area.  If a diplomat was selected for a secondary screening, they should speak with a supervisor and present the boarding pass, diplomatic passport and blue ID card.  A reminder notice would be issued to the screening staff at New York airports to ensure that described procedures were carried out.

With respect to the issuance of entry visas, the Sudan’s representative reported an incident in which his country’s Minister of Environment and Urban Development, and head of the Sudanese delegation to the fiftienth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development from 30 April to 11 May, had been denied a visa.  The Minister’s inability to head the delegation had had a negative effect on the level of his country’s participation in the Commission’s work.  In that connection, Sudan reminded the host county of its obligations under the Headquarters Agreement, which were not favours and required unequivocal compliance.

Cuba’s representative pointed out that a representative of the National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba, a non-governmental organization enjoying consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, had been denied a visa and, thus, prevented from attending the fifty-first session of the Commission on the Status of Women from 26 February to 9 March 2007.  The Cuban Mission had raised the issue with the United States Mission and, ironically, while it was the United States that had made a mistake, the Cuban Mission had been blamed for not having provided information in a timely manner.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his mission periodically encountered problems due to non-issuance of visas, and the United States had repeatedly referred to the 15-day deadline for issuance.  In a recent incident, the Russian expert to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues had been compelled to arrive late due to a delay in visa issuance.  While grateful to the Host Country Section of the United States Mission for its assistance in resolving visa issues, the Russian Federation believed that, in general, the mechanism for issuing visas should work smoothly so that no extra steps were needed.

Indonesia’s representative also drew attention to delays in issuing visas for Government officials, noting that officials from his country had been unable to attend meetings.  Venezuela’s representative said his delegation had also experienced problems with visas, particularly when the President wished to attend the General Assembly.  Iran’s delegate cited two incidents in which officials had been prevented from attending disarmament meetings, and drew attention also to delays in issuing entry visas to personnel assigned to the Permanent Mission and their families.  The Committee should take effective measures to protect the right of Member States representatives to attend meetings on time and without impediments.

Committee Chairman Andreas Mavroyiannis ( Cyprus) urged Member States to inform the host country immediately when problems arose, noting that, in his experience, the host country did its utmost to resolve such issues when they were raised.

Syria’s representative raised the issue of visitors wishing to enter the United States for personal reasons, such as visiting relatives.  For example, his sister, who resided in Kuwait and was terminally ill with cancer, had not been issued a visa in a timely manner, despite the fact that an American doctor had attached a medical report to her request.  The United States Embassy in Kuwait had done nothing for two months, after which a visa was no longer necessary.  There was a need for a minimum humanitarian level in dealing with such matters.

The representative of the United States urged delegations experiencing visa problems to bring them to the attention of the host country’s Mission immediately, adding that he had learned only last Thursday that the Sudanese Minister had not received a visa.  The Minister’s application had not included a name.  His visa had, therefore, not been denied.  However, it had not been cleared. 

He said a visa denial must be approved at the highest level of the State Department and in consultation with the Secretary-General and the mission concerned.  The Deputy Chief of the United States Mission in Khartoum had proposed that somebody at the Foreign Ministry contact him personally the moment a problem arose, since nothing could be done for anything without the required information.  Inflammatory statements had been made for political reasons, as they concerned information provided long after the fact.

Responding to the concerns expressed by the representatives of Indonesia and the Russian Federation, he also addressed the so-called “congestion plan” proposal, under which vehicles would be charged a fee for entering Manhattan.  Some had referred to it as a “congestion tax”; whereas, the actual wording was “congestion pricing”.  There was an important difference.  It was not clear whether the proposal would be approved in Albany and the discussion was very premature at present.

Under other matters, India’s representative asked about the host country’s position on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of immunity from jurisdiction with respect to diplomatic properties, under which the Indian Government and others had immunity and were not liable for property tax on their respective portions of the buildings they occupied.

At the end of the meeting, the Committee Chairman said the Host City had expressed concerns regarding the safety and security of the Headquarters District, including the application of the New York City Fire Code and licensing/permit requirements prescribed by local law.  Although the Secretariat had addressed many such issues, some remained outstanding pending conclusion of contractual arrangements and other negotiations, and implementation of the Capital Master Plan.  As the City was concerned about the pace of progress, and the safety and security of the Headquarters District was of interest to all, the Chair intended to work with the Secretariat, the host city and the host country to see how progress could be facilitated.

He added that he had received no response from Member States to his letter seeking their recommendations and comments concerning implementation of the United States Diplomatic Parking Programme.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record