340.1 AGB/3–2553: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations ( Lodge ) to the Department of State
priority
578. For the Secretary. The first case in which the US has refused entry to the UN Headquarters District to a representative of a nongovernmental organization with consultative status has just arisen from a decision of the Attorney General which precludes the granting of a visa to Margarette Luckock, a Canadian national designated by a Communist-dominated group, WIDF (see Deptel 348 of March 19). The implications of this decision in our relations with the UN 1 should like to set out:
1. Since Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement between the US and UN provides that federal authorities shall not impose any impediment to transit to or from the Headquarters District by certain representatives of NGO’s, of whom Luckock is one, recognized by the UN for purposes of consultation, the Attorney General has rested his decision in this case on Section 6 of the joint resolution of the 80th Congress, Public Law 357, which provides in part, that nothing in the Headquarters Agreement shall be construed as abridging the right of the US to safeguard its own security and completely control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the US other than the Headquarters District and its immediate vicinity.
2. Since Margarette Luckock is in all probability an alien inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, in order for her [Page 251] to obtain a visa it would be necessary for the Attorney General to approve, under Sec 212(D) (3) of the act, a recommendation of the Secretary of State that she be admitted. In cases of this sort in the past, such approval has been given.
In the present case, however, the Attorney General has refused approval of a recommendation for admission. Finding that Mrs. Luckock is excludable under Section 212(A) (29) of the act as a person who would probably engage in subversive activities after entry into the US. Such a finding precludes approval under Section 212 (D) (3).
3. The SYG UN has in a note dated March 19 (mytel 569) called to my attention Luckock’s entitlement to be admitted to the US under the provisions of Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement. It has previously been the position of the SYG that Section 6 is not a valid reservation by the US to Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement. Since the US in denying a visa to Luckock is relying on the determination of the Attorney General that she is excludable under Section 212 (A) (29) and that the denial of her admission falls under Section 6 of the joint resolution and arises out of the right of the US to safeguard its own security, I am wondering what facts, if any, we will be able to make available to the SYG in support of this finding. I think it is of some political importance to explain the reasons for this decision to friendly UN delegations as well as to the SYG.
4. In the light of the difference of opinion between the US and the SYG on the scope of Section 6 of the joint resolution in relation to Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement, it may well be that the US will be drawn into arbitration of this question under Section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement which provides that any dispute concerning interpretation or application of the agreement shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators. If this should occur, it might be particularly important to have available the facts on which the decision of the US is based, excluding Luckock pursuant to Section 6. This also raises the question, of course, what the position of the US would be in the event of an adverse decision arising out of such arbitration.
5. Another possible course of action other than excluding this alien, such as the imposition of restrictions on her movements and unofficial activities has, I assume, been considered and rejected.
6. If it is to be a general policy, broader than the instant case, for the Attorney General to give wide application to the provisions of Section 212(A) (29) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, this fact will have an important effect upon US–UN relations which probably should be considered at this time.
In conclusion, the Luckock case is being exploited in the Commission on the Status of Women in which the USRep, Mrs. Hahn, is finding the US position under daily attack. Any tentative or partial answers on some of the points raised above would help Mrs. Hahn in setting forth the rationale of the US position, although she and I understand that technically the legal questions are for discussion and negotiation between the US and the SYG UN.