501.AC/4–1747: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
priority
360. At meeting of delegation SYGs April 16 Secretariat officials, at Argentine request, reported on status of negotiations between US and UN on headquarters arrangements. Secretariat reported that US intention on section 27 relating to privileges and immunities for resident representatives to UN was that full diplomatic privileges should be granted only to persons of ambassadorial and ministerial rank, and a few other members of the staff.2
There was strong, unanimous criticism made by representatives of 25 delegations present that the phrase in section 27 stating that privileges and immunities would be granted to “such resident members of their (resident representatives) staffs as may be agreed upon by the SYG, USA, and government of the member concerned” would be so narrowly interpreted by U.S. The intended interpretation was obviously a surprise to those present.
U.S. member was requested to make known to me and, through me, the Dept, the opposition of the delegations represented to the proposed text and US plan to limit number on staffs of representatives to whom diplomatic privileges and immunities would be granted. Unanimous agreements was that missions accredited to US in Washington [Page 23] and to UN in NY should receive identical privileges and immunities and for corresponding members of their staffs. SYGs of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Poland, Greece, and Netherlands stated that they were certain their governments would oppose a limitation of this nature. Polish representative noted it was a rare occasion when Polish and Argentine representatives agreed heartily.
Netherlands and Australian representatives observed that probable result of such an article would be numerous evasions, mentioning specifically that staffs would secure immunity from customs by importing goods in name of resident representative. Another type of evasion suggested was that all or nearly all of officers of mission would be designated as ministers, thus mocking law.
Secretariat also reported that it was State Department view that agreement should be submitted to Congress in form of joint resolution to be approved by Congress prior to its submission to the next GA. Opposition and concern were expressed by several SYGs that agreement might be approved by Congress before submission to GA, thereby facing GA with fait accompli or making extremely difficult a recommendation by GA that Congress reverse its action. It was the sense of the meeting that it would be preferable to postpone Congressional action until the text had been reviewed by GA.
Secretariat representative (Schreiber) defended text of agreement, pointing to probable delays if question were reopened. However, he indicated that support indicated by delegation representatives would strengthen hand of SYG in remaining negotiations with US.
US made no comment on foregoing, simply agreeing to transmit views.
The question of privileges and immunities for members of missions to UN has explosive possibilities for US. Solid front presented by other delegations may place US in very embarrassing position. Permanent delegations attach more importance to this than to many substantive issues. Implication for other delegations is clearly that US considers UN to be on a subordinate plane to foreign missions accredited to US. Such a position has inference that US places less emphasis on UN than on relations with individual governments and therefore appears to be an unwillingness to support fully the UN. In addition to the important policy consideration thereby involved, Dept should consider difficulty that will be experienced by delegation in dealing with other delegations for whom lack of diplomatic status is a ranking condition.
Now that all permanent delegations here have learned of the US position, the issue will certainly come to the fore and will be a constant irritant from this point forward.
Recommend that Department give serious consideration to implications of a restricted interpretation of privileges and immunities and [Page 24] that I be authorized in contemplated definitive negotiations with SYG Lie to concede that the privileges and immunities to be granted to the missions of the members acredited to the UN should be substantially the equivalent of those granted to the foreign missions in Washington.
In return for such concession by US we may find it easier to achieve our objective in the matter of deportation of undesirable employees of Secretariat.
-
For citations to references in this paragraph, see footnotes to memorandum by the Legal Adviser (Fahy), April 23, infra.
On June 20, 1946, officers of the Department of State and the Secretariat of the United Nations reached agreement on a text for a draft headquarters convention regarding the location of the permanent headquarters of the United Nations in the United States, section 27 of which read:
↩“Every person accredited to the United Nations by a Member as the principal resident representative of such Member or as a resident representative with the rank of ambassador or minister plenipotentiary, and such resident members of their staffs as may be agreed upon between the Secretary-General, the United States of America and the Government of the Member concerned, shall[,] whether residing inside or outside the zone, be entitled in the territory of the United States to the same privileges and immunities as it accords to diplomatic envoys accredited to it. In the case of Members whose governments are not recognized by the United States of America, such privileges and immunities need be extended to their representatives, or persons on the staffs of such representatives, only within the zone, at their residences and offices outside the zone, in transit between the zone and such residences and offices, and in transit on official business to or from foreign countries.”