Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country – SecGen report/Addendum

Distr.

GENERAL

A/43/26/Add.1

29 November 1988

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Forty-third session

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS WITH THE HOST COUNTRY.

Addendum

1. At the 134th meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, on 23 November 1988, the observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) drew the Committee's attention to the fact that on 8 December 1988 the General Assembly would begin its debate on Palestine, and Mr. Yasser Arafat, the Chairman of the PLO, intended to participate in that debate and in particular to make an opening statement. Mr. Arafat and his party would be sending their passports and the appropriate forms to the United States Embassy at Tunis on 25 November 1988. He expressed the hope that those passports and forms would be processed promptly and that the travel and access by Mr. Arafat to the United Nations would be facilitated.

2. The representative of Iraq expressed the view that there would be no problem with holding a meeting of the Committee at short notice, if necessary, regarding the qranting of a visa for Mr. Arafat.

3. The Chairman of the Committee confirmed that the Committee was always ready to meet should situations arise that required its urgent attention.

4. On 28 November 1988, at the urgent request of Iraq, the Committee considered, at its 135th and 136th meetings, the question of the denial by the United States Secretary of State of the visa application of Mr. Yasser Arafat, which had been made in order to permit Mr. Arafat to attend the forty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly.

 The present mimeographed addendum to the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (A/43/26) will be issued subsequently in printed form as Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-third Session, Supplement No. 26A (A/43/26/Add.1).

5. At the 135th meeting, the representative of Iraq deplored the denial by the host country of the visa for Mr. Arafat. Such a decision was in violation of the host country obligation under section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement of 1947. A dangerous precedent would have been set if the decision were not revoked. The host country had taken upon itself the right to decide who should and who should not come to the United Nations. He further expressed the view that the Committee and the General Assembly should take a clear-cut position on his matter. They should reject the decision completely and appeal to the host country to comply with its obligations under international law.

6. The representative of France stated that as soon as his Government had learned of the United States deciaion, it had requested the host country to reconsider its position. Such a position was not in conformity with the Headquarters Agreement. The visit to the United Nations of Mr. Arafat was most desirable at this time. He appealed to the United States to reconsider its decision.

7. The representative of Spain regretted that the host country, through an administrative measure, prevented Mr. Arafat's entry to the United States to deal with matters of the Organization. That action wee in violation of the Headquarters Agreement. Resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, which granted observer status to the PLO, reguired no further interpretation. Compliance with international law, particularly with the Headquarters Agreement, was of primary importance. Spain, along with countries of the Buropean Community, had welcomed the Palestine National Council's decision regarding an independent State of Palestine. He was concerned that the denial by the United States of a visa for Mr. Arafat might have an adverse effect on the peace initiatives regarding the Middle East. He urqed the United States to reconsider its decision.

8. The representative of Bulgaria supported the views expressed by the preceding speakers. The decision by the United States represented a serious and clear-cut violation of the Headquarters Agreement and the relevant resolution of the General Assembly granting observer status to the PLO. Mr. Arafat had the right to be heard by the United Nations. The United Statea decision wee unacceptable. The host country should be urged to reconsider the decision and to ensure that Mr. Arafat was allowed to attend the Assembly aesaion during its discussion of the Palestine question. Violation of the Headquarters Agreement was a very serious matter.

9. The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics said that the guestion was important and urgent. He supported the views expressed that the United States action could only give rise to the greatest concern. He also fully supported the statements by the Secretary-General and the President of the forty-third session of the General Assembly on this subject. The Headquarters Agreement provided that no obstacles should be placed to the travel to Headquarters of persons on United Nations business. It contained the relevant provisions for the participation of all invited to the United Nations as observers. A gross violation of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Agreement had been perpetrated. The host country should immediately review its decision, taken at a time when there was a growing trend towards a process for peace in the Middle East. The Palestinian question was the crux and heart of that situation. He appealed to the United States authorities to reconsider their illegal decision and to allow Mr. Arafat to address the General Assembly.

10. The representative of China stated that the decision by the United States was in violation of the Headquarters Agreement and was not conducive to a settlement of the Middle East question. The United States had an obligation not to impose any impediments to peraons invited to the Headquartera on official business. The refusal by the United States to issue a visa for so-called security reasons was in violation of the Agreement. The Palestine question was the core of the Middle East question, which the international community wished to see settled. He hoped the United States would reconsider its decision. China supported the statements of the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General on this matter.

11. The obaerver of the Paleatine Liberation Organization reminded the members of the Committee that the initial request for visas for the PLO Chairman and his colleagues had been made on 8 November, not 24 November. On 25 November, the necesaary documents had been presented at the United States Consulate in Tunisia. The United Nations Legal Counael later informed the PLO that he had not been contacted with regard to the requeat for visas. Resolution 3237 (XIX) of 22 November 1974, which granted the PLO observer statue, provided the PLO with the right to nominate ita delegation to the United Nations. Consequently, it was expected that the host country would abide by that resolution. According to the Headquarters Agreement, the United Statea did not have the right to decide who could enter the country in connection with the Organization's work. Therefore, the United Statea waa violating its obligationa under sectiona 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquartera Agreement. At a time when the Palestine National Council had adopted a very positive stand, its Chairman was carrying an important message to reach the United States Administration. The important question was whether it could be done within 48 hours. It was the responsibility of the United States to permit the Organization to carry on with its work.

12. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stated that he would have liked to hear Mr. Arafat confirm to the General Assembly that the PLO wished for an international conference, and also reject terrorism. The decision of the Palestine National Council had been a modest step, but a step forward. He looked to the Palestinians to carry the step further, and to Israel to show a serious response. He understood that the United States had serious concerns, but hoped that a way could be found for Mr. Arafat to speak to the Assembly.

13. The representative of the United States of America stated that the United States had always taken its host country responsibilities seriously, and continued to do so. Over the years, visas had been issued to thousands who otherwise, under United States law, would not have been able to come. The PLO had been invited in 1974 to participate as an observer. The United States had acknowledged its responsibilities in that regard, issuing visas to observers from the PLO, notwithstanding any policy differences between the two. The United States had been scrupulous in respect of its obligation under the Headquarters Agreement. The United States had the right to protect ita national security. The host country was not expected to accept the entry of every individual to the Headquarters district: it had the right to deny visaa in some cases. That had happened in several situations, including in 1954 with an Iranian citizen who had been convicted of an attempt to kill the Shah. Individuals associated with the "hostage incident" in Iran had been excluded with no objection. Similar denials had occurred in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. There was no objection to thia United States position. In the case under discusaion, there wee evidence that the PLO had engaged in terrorism against the United States after that Organization forewore terrorism in 1985. Having evidence that Mr. Arafat knew of and condoned terrorism against the United States, the United Statea Government had denied him a visa, which was consistent with the Headquarters Agreement, which the United States had accepted. The United States would continue to take ita responaibilitioa aa the host country most seriously.

14. With reference to the casea of deniala of visas with the alleged United Nations acquiescence in the past, referred to in the statement by the representative of the United States, the obaerver of the PLO stated that in this particular case the United Nations had not acquiesced.

15. The Committee continued its consideration of the question of the denial of Mr. Arafat's visa application at its 136th meeting, on 28 November 1988.

16. The representative of Canada stated that his Government was concerned about the United States decision not to grant a visa to Mr. Arafat and wee in the process of communicating that concern to the United States authorities. Canada believed it was more important than ever for the viewa of the PLO to be heard by the General Assembly.

17. The representative of Costa Rica stated that her Government shared the concerns expressed by the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly over the United States action. However, it understood the reasons advanced by the United States authorities. Costa Rica opposed terrorism but joined in the appeal to the United States to reconsider its decision.

18. The representative of Mali said that his Government was deeply concerned about the United States action, which violated the Headquarters Agreement. He appealed to the United States authorities to reconaider their decision and to allow a high-level PLO representation at the plenary meeting on the Palestine question.

19. Speaking as an observer on behalf of the Group of Arab States, the representative of Jordan said that Arab countries condemned the decision taken by the host country not to grant a visa to Mr. Arafat. That decision constituted a clear violation of the host country's obligationa under the Headquarters Agreement and was an impediment to peace efforts in the Middle East. Members and observers could constitute their delegations as they saw fit. The Arab Group hoped that the Assembly would adopt a decision stating that the United States action was a violation of the Headquarters Agreement and appealing for its revocation in order to allow Mr. Arafat to address the General Assembly.

20. The Legal Counsel confirmed that a visa requeat for Mr. Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, was presented to the Secretary-General on the afternoon of 8 November 1988. The visa reguest stated explicitly that the purpose of Mr. Arafat's visit was to participate in the work of the forty-third session of the General Assembly. The note was transmitted by him to the United States Mission on 9 November 1988. In transmitting this request he had drawn attention to the fact that the note was worded in exactly the aame way as the normal PLO visa requests, that Mr. Arafat wee designated therein as the Chairman of the Esecutive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and that the purpose of Mr. Arafat's visit was to participate in the work of the forty-third session of the United Nations General Aasembly. The requeat, therefore, fell under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement. The Headquarters Agreement did not contain a reservation of the right to bar the entry of those who represent, in the view of the host country, a threat to its security, as mentioned in the Determination by the Secretary of State dated 27 November 1988. There wee a difference of opinion between the United Nationa and the United Statea on the legal character and validity in international law of the ao-called aecurity reservation contained in section 6 of Public Law 80-357. That difference had surfaced occasionally. In the present circumstances, it sufficed to refer to the wording of section 6, whatever the international legal character of that proviso might be, which spoke of the need to "safeguard its own security and completely to control the entry of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the Headquarters Diatrict and its immediate vicinity and such areas as it is reasonably necesaary to traverse in transit between the same and foreign countries" (emphasis added). Mr. Arafat's visa application wee precisely to visit the Headquartera District and nothing else. The application thus fell within the scope of section 11, within the scope of the exception provided for in section 13 (d) of the Headquartera Agreement and within the area left open by section 6 of Public Law 80-357. The statement of the Department of State did not make the point that the presence of Mr. Arafat at the United Nations would per se in any way threaten the security of the United States. With reference to the assertion by the United States that the host country had the right to decline the issuance of visas and that the United Nations had, on a number of occasions since 1954, acquiesced in such a practice, the Legal Counsel stated that the United Nations had not acquiesced n such a practice. He further expressed the opinion that the host country had been and was under an obligation to grant the visa request of the Chairman of the PLO, an organization that has been granted observer status by the General Assembly.

21. The representative of Iraq supported the statement made by the Legal Counsel and in particular ita conclusion that the United States was in violation of the Headquarters Agreement. The Committee should go on record in support of the statement by the Legal Counsel and should call on the United States to rescind its Action. The matter should be dealt with expeditiously.

22. The representative of Senegal deplored the United States action. The refusal to grant Mr. Arafat a visa constituted a regrettable non-fulfilment of obligations to which the United States had solemnly subscribed under the Headquarters Agreement. Senegal appealed to the United States to reconsider its action. The Committee on the Esercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, chaired by Senegal, considered that the Algiers decisions of the Palestine National Council had opened the way for the peace process in the Middle East.

23. The representative of Honduras joined in the appeal for the granting of a visa for Mr. Arafat, believing that his participation in the General Assembly debate on Palestine would give a better understanding of the evolution of the Middle East problem. That was especially so now when one of the parties involved seemed to offer a position that could become a constructive one for the peace efforts.

24. The representative of the United States responded that the Government of the United States did not share the view of the Legal Counsel with respect to the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement relating to matters of security. The United States also had a different view with respect to other parts of the Legal Counsel's statement but would not go into detail at the present meeting. The position of the United States on the matter was well known.

25. In summing up the exchange of views on the matter under discussion, the Chairman, after consultations held within the Committee's Bureau and with other interested delegations, made the following statement:

"At its 135th and 136th meetings, the Committee heard statements by members of the Committee, observers of Member States, the observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations concerning the Determination by the Secretary of State of the United States denying the visa application of Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, to enable him to attend and participate in the forty-third session of the United Nations General Assemblv.

"Taking into account those statements, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country I wish to sum up as follows:

(a) The vast majority of speakers were of the opinion that the denial of the application for a visa by Mr. Arafat is a violation of the United States obligations under the Headquarters Agreement. In this regard these speakers concurred with the statements issued by the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly.

(b) The United States restated its position that its actions were fully consistent with the facts of the situation, with its obligations under the Headquarters Agreement, and with existing practice.

(c) The vast majority of those who spoke were of the opinion that the host country should be asked to urgently review and reverse the decision taken with respect to Mr. Arafat, to enable him to participate in the General Assemblv debate as scheduled."