L/UNA files, “Headquarters Agreement—Section 6”
Memorandum by the Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs (Meeker) to the Deputy United States Representative at the United Nations (Wadsworth)
- Subject:
- Draft Report by the Secretary-General to ECOSOC
We received yesterday the new draft report1 of the Secretary-General, on visa matters, which you sent down from New York for our comments. We have gone over the paper, and the interested areas of the Department (Mr. Lourie’s office, UNA, and the Legal Adviser’s Office) have the following suggestions to make:
[Page 301]1. In the third paragraph of the draft report, there is a statement which begins “Subject to the Agreement, the United States also has the authority to make any reasonable definition …” In an earlier letter of transmittal, Secretary-General Hammarskjold stated that the words “Subject to the Agreement” had the effect of making definitions subject to arbitration under Section 21. We did not concur in this, and in view of the history which has gone before, believe that the expression “Subject to the Agreement” should be omitted from the present draft or replaced by a neutral expression such as “In accordance with the Agreement”.
2. In the third sentence of the next paragraph of the Secretary-General’s draft report, coverage is limited to “a representative of a nongovernmental organization”. This is too narrow, since such cases might cover newspaper correspondents, invitees, or others. Accordingly, we think the expresssion should be modified to read “a person covered by Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement” or, simply, “an alien”.
3. The first and last sentences of that same paragraph in the Secretary-General’s report give rise to some difficulty. We don’t think there is a sufficient measure of agreement to warrant saying, at the beginning of the first sentence, “It is agreed that”. This is the Secretariat’s statement, and we think that quoted words should be omitted. In the last sentence of the paragraph the Secretary-General’s theory of security cases under the Headquarters Agreement is attributed to “the United States representatives”. It would be more accurate to rephrase the last sentence in either of the following alternative ways:
- (a)
- “Such cases would appear to be outside the scope of the Headquarters Agreement.”, or
- (b)
- “The United States representatives hold that in such cases the United States Government is entitled to refuse a visa.”
4. As you indicated yesterday, some of the statements late in the report, concerning arbitration and concerning the necessity of reference to the General Assembly, are unfortunate and undesirable. We think that the last two sentences in the fifth paragraph of the Secretary-General’s report and the last two sentences of the sixth paragraph should be omitted. This material is not only objectionable in its substance but also strikes a dissonant minor chord on which to end the report. We would strongly urge a revision of the last paragraph of the Secretary-General’s draft report along the following lines:
“In giving this account of the negotiations to the Economic and Social Council, I have therefore to report that there is a measure of agreement which may help to remove difficulties over the matter in the future, and I venture to express the hope that any remaining questions will be resolved satisfactorily in the application of the Head-quarters [Page 302] Agreement or in further negotiations with representatives of the United States,”
This would seem not only an acceptable approach from the United States point of view, but also a statement which would clearly preserve the Secretary-General’s position in the event that the hope expressed by him should not materialize. He could then, of course, refer the matter to the General Assembly or seek arbitration. Since this would be true whether or not the Secretary-General makes any express reference to it in his report, we hope very much that he will be willing to eliminate from the draft report the references to arbitration and to General Assembly decision.
5. The changes suggested above have been formulated not in terms of what we would consider to be the ideal report of the Secretary-General, but rather as alterations which would make it possible for the U.S. Delegation at ECOSOC in Geneva to acquiesce in the Secretary-General’s report.
6. In view of the implications of this whole matter for the operations of the Department of Justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act, it would seem desirable for Ambassador Lodge to inform Attorney General Brownell concerning the proposed report of the Secretary-General to ECOSOC before the report is finalized.
- Not found in Department of State files. There is a copy of an undated draft in the L/UNA files with the date “17 July 1953” handwritten in; but this is obviously in error as it incorporates changes proposed in the instant memorandum.↩