ICP
Asks IPU About
US Visa
Restrictions,
If Meet
Elsewhere in
Future
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 28 --
When
Inter-Parliamentary
Union's
Secretary
General and
President held
a press
conference in
the UN Press
Briefing Room
on August 28,
Inner City
Press on
behalf of the
Free
UN Coalition
for Access asked
them about the
visa
restrictions
imposed by the
US on Russian
Council
Speaker
Valentina
Matviyenko, as
a matter of
access, and
host country
relations. Video here, and embedded below.
IPU Secretary
General Martin
Chongong told
Inner City
Press:
"When
it comes to
the ability
for members of
parliament to
attend the IPU
conference, of
course we want
to, the ideal
situation
would be for
every
parliament to
be able to
attend the IPU
conference
here without
any
restrictions.
We’re aware of
possible
difficulties
in the past,
when we
started to
organize these
meetings, and
we have been
in
consultations
with various
authorities,
including in
the US, and we
have been told
that the UN
visa
processing,
process was
very long, and
we encouraged
to ask
possible
participants
to apply well
in advance for
those visas. I
would think
that, we have
not had any
particular
visa
difficulty
being brought
to our
attention
apart from the
one you’re
referring to,
the Russian
Speaker.
"It is only
this morning
that we have
learned
officially
that she’s not
coming. Up
until this day
we were
expecting that
she was
coming. When
we were coming
to this press
conference we
saw a message
from her that
she will not
be attending.
Of course, we
regret the
fact, because
we think that
this is a
forum where
all the
members of
Parliament,
true to the
nature of
democracy,
could exercise
their freedom
of expression
and bring to
the floor what
the issues
are.
"We have yet
to have the
details of the
decision taken
for her not to
participate,
what are the
conditions
that were
supposedly
imposed by the
American
administration
on her for
participation
in this
meeting, so if
I might answer
your question,
but I would
not like to
comment on an
interpretation
of a decision
that I have
not seen, and
I have not
seen that
decision by
the Americans.
Inner City
Press asked,
Would you ever
think of doing
a meeting in
another
country if in
fact the
parliamentarians
can't attend
in this
country?
A: We
have a
principle in
the IPU, when
it comes to
statutory
meetings, that
we cannot hold
meetings in
countries that
do not
guarantee
access to all
invited
participants.
But this one
is a special
meeting that
we’re holding.
It’s not a
statutory
meeting of the
inter-parliamentary
union. It’s an
exceptional
meeting. And
it is taking
place here, in
New York,
primarily
because it is
here that
history is
going to be
made a few
weeks down the
road with the
new SDGs being
adopted by the
summit of
heads of
state. We are
saying that
parliament
should be
there when
this major
decision is
taken, and
that is why we
have this
meeting here,
in New York.
But normally
we would want,
and we’ve had
to cancel
meetings,
statutory
meetings of
the IPU, when
we did not
receive
guarantees for
all
participants,
all invited
parties to
attend.
I want
to point out
to you that we
have received
confirmation
from the
speaker of the
Russian upper
house of
parliament
that she will
be attending
the next IPU
assembly in
Geneva in
October. I do
not anticipate
any problems
regarding her
participation.
In fact, we
look forward
to it.
IPU
President
Saber
Chowdhury told
Inner City
Press / FUNCA:
"Just
quickly, you
asked the
question as to
the choice of
the venue in
New York. And,
if I can just
invite your
attention to
the GA
resolution
68/272 that
was taken in
19th of May.
And I’ll just
read out very
briefly. This
is from the GA
resolution. It
says,
'Welcomes
the
preparations
currently
under way for
the
organization
of the Fourth
World
Conference of
Speakers of
Parliament, in
2015, and
encourages the
conduct of
these
preparations
in close
cooperation
with the
United
Nations, with
a view to
holding the
Conference at
United Nations
Headquarters
in New York as
part of the
series of
high-level
meetings in
2015, and
maximizing
political
support for
the outcome of
the summit on
the post-2015
development
agenda.'
"So
this also sort
of influenced
our choice of
New York,
because we
were
encouraged by
a decision
that was taken
by the General
Assembly. And
we of course
read that in
good faith and
accept that in
good faith and
make our
arrangements."
This is not an
isolated case.
(But what *is*
also a trend
is the old UN
Correspondents
Association
demanding a
set-aside
first question
- and then not
asking about
access issues.
We'll have
more on this.
FUNCA
opposes
set-aside
first
questions,
including for
this reasons.)
For
years, the US
has restricted
to within 25
miles of New
York City not
only Cuban
diplomats but
also UN staff
members who
are Cuban
nationals. Now
amid the thaw
in US-Cuba
relations, on
August 4 Inner
City Press asked the UN's
deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq
about it:
Inner
City Press: On
the host
country
agreement, I
wanted to ask
whether, given
the new
re-establishment
of diplomatic
relations
between the US
and Cuba,
whether Cuban
nationals who
work for the
UN are still
subject to a
25-mile
restriction
outside of New
York.
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq:
Again, that’s
a question to
ask the US
authorities.
This is not a
restriction
that is
imposed by the
United
Nations.
It’s a
question of
the bilateral
relations
between those
two countries.
Inner City
Press:
Right.
But given the
UN speaks up
about
restrictions
on travel on
its staff in
countries
likes Sudan
and don’t ask
Sudan if
they’re
restricting
our staff, I’m
asking you are
UN staff
members who
are nationals
of Cuba still
restricted
within 25
miles, as a UN
question?
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq: No,
that’s a
question
actually of US
policy.
Does the US
policy make
that
restriction?
Please ask the
US Government
on that.
That’s not
something
that’s put
upon anyone by
us.
Again, this
misses the
point. When
Sudan or other
countries
imposes
restrictions
on the
movement of UN
staff, the UN
(sometimes)
speaks up. To
say, ask the
country
imposing the
restriction on
UN staff makes
no sense, or
is craven.
We'll have
more on this.
Back on
July 1, on the
day the US'
Jeffrey
DeLaurentis
handed
President
Barack Obama's
letter to Raul
Castro,
setting July
20 for the
re-opening of
embassies,
Inner City
Press asked a
Cuban diplomat
in New York if
the
restrictions
on him, and on
Cuban UN
staff, to stay
within 25
miles of
Columbus
Circle would
remain in
place.
Yes, was the
reply, with a
shaking of the
head. How this
is legal under
the Host
Country
Agreement
between the US
and UN is not
clear. But the
UN says
nothing about
it.
Later on July
1, UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon issued
a statement
welcoming the
move, but
saying nothing
about the US'
restrictions
not only on
Cuban
diplomats but
also on UN
staff of Cuban
nationality,
who work for
Ban. Ah,
leadership.
Ban said (with
the bracketed
word "more"
crossed out)
--
"The
Secretary-General
welcomes the
announcement
today that
Cuba and the
United States
will reopen
embassies in
Havana and
Washington,
D.C.. The
restoration of
diplomatic
ties is an
important step
on the path
toward the
normalization
of relations.
"In keeping
with the
principles of
its founding
Charter, the
United Nations
supports
efforts to
promote [more]
harmonious and
good
neighbourly
relations
among States.
The
Secretary-General
hopes that
this historic
step will
benefit the
peoples of
both
countries."
Back on April
1 as talks
continued
between Cuba
and the US,
including in
Havana on
telecommunications,
Inner City
Press on April
1 asked the UN
to confirm
that Cuban
nationals who
are UN staff
members are
for now
required to
seek prior
approval
before
venturing more
than 25 miles
from Columbus
Circle in
Manhattan.
While the UN
openly
complains when
restricted in
certain other
countries,
this
restriction it
refuses to
confirm or
discuss. From
the UN's
April 1
transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
you about UN
staff's
ability to
travel more
than 25 miles
outside of New
York... I'd
like you to
comment on
whether Cuban
staff, i.e.,
employed by
the UN, but
from Cuba, are
subject to
that
restriction,
and what the
Secretariat
has done
either
historically
or recently to
oppose that,
and your
position on
the legality
of the host
country
limiting UN
staff to a
certain
distance from
Manhattan.
Deputy
Spokesman
Farhan
Haq: As
you know,
there's a
Convention on
the privileges
and immunities
of UN and
associated
staff, so I
would just
refer to you
that. So
for any
problems that
we have in any
of the
countries
where we
operate, we
take them up
with the local
authorities,
and in this
case, it would
also be an
issue for the
Host Country
Committee.
Inner City
Press:
Right, but can
we either now
or later today
just get an
answer from
the UN, maybe
it's OHRM or
OLA, are you
aware, because
I am, of
restrictions
imposed by the
host country
on UN staff
members from
particular
countries, and
what's your
position on
that?
[overlapping
talking]
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq:
Like I said,
our position
is in line
with the
Convention on
the privileges
and immunities
of the United
Nations and
associated
staff.
So we have
that as a
clear
point.
And then if we
have concerns
with any
countries, we
take them up
at different
levels.
And like I
said, in this
case,
sometimes
there would be
issues for the
Host Country
Committee and
we'd take it
up there.
Inner City
Press:
I'm just
wondering, can
the UN not say
whether it has
staff members
based here in
New York who
are restricted
from
traveling?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Whenever we
have any
concerns, we
take them up
with the
authorities as
need be,
including with
the Host
Country
Committee.
Back on March
26 Inner City
Press asked US
State
Department
spokesperson
Jeff Rathke
about US
limitations on
Cuban
diplomats.
From the State
Department
transcript:
Inner
City
Press:
Cuba has
complained
that its
diplomats
accredited to
the UN in New
York are not
allowed to go
more than 25
miles outside
of the city or
from Columbus
Circle.
And I wanted
to know
whether this
restriction is
one of the
things that’s
being
negotiated.
Is it
considered
being
lifted?
Is it – where
does it stand,
and how do –
and what’s the
U.S. – given
that generally
people
accredited to
the UN can
travel freely,
how does the
U.S. justify
it?
MR.
RATHKE:
Well, we’ve
said from the
very start of
our rounds of
talks with the
Cuban
Government
that one of
the topics we
want to
discuss is the
ability of
American
diplomats in
Cuba to move
around freely
and, of
course, the
Cubans have a
similar
concern.
I’m not going
to get into
the state of
those
discussions,
but that’s
clearly a
topic that
we’ve been
talking about
over the last
few rounds.
Rathke went on
to say it is
part of the
negotiations.
Back
on March 13,
after Cuba
came out in
strong defense
of Venezuela
after US
President
Obama's
executive
order, the US
was
disappointed
but not
surprised, a
senior State
Department
official told
reporters on a
background
call.
Will that
restriction,
which seems
contrary to
the Host
Country
Agreement
between the US
and UN and the
Vienna
Conventions,
be removed?
Currently in
charge of the
US' “interest
section” is Jeffrey
Delaurentis,
formerly with
the US Mission
to the UN.
What does he
say about the
25 mile
restriction?
And how might
he fare in a
nomination
process in the
US Senate?
Watch this
site.
, 
