315.3/7–953: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Wadsworth) to the Department of State
12. For Lourie from Wadsworth (limit distribution). Following is text of communication and enclosure dated July 8 addressed by SYG UN to Lodge which I discussed with you on telephone today:
“I am sorry indeed to have to revert to the question of the Headquarters Agreement, but, in going over the text of my statement to ECOSOC, I have observed a couple of points which, to my mind, make necessary some minor amendments to the text. I send you a copy of the points which might be included’ as I would like to have them finally drafted. The amendments are underlined.
“By way of explanation of the amendments now suggested, I would like to say that the amendment in the first line of the last paragraph is purely formal and is intended to get rid of a phrase which was adequate for the original draft, but now is not very good as an introduction [Page 299] to what follows. The other amendments represent in my view only clarifications of what must already be taken for granted.
“Of course, this whole statement of the results of our common sense approach is somewhat in the nature of a gentleman’s agreement. It has been clear to me that you intend to treat any future cases in such a way that we shall get decisions in due time. I am also confident that, when you define the ‘immediate vicinity’, this will be done after consultation with us and in a spirit true to the purpose of the Headquarter’s Agreement.
“I feel sure, however, the points covered in the amendments—along with several others—will be raised in ECOSOC discussion. I then shall have to state what is my interpretation of your intentions. If the text remained without the amendments I am now proposing, I would be in a somewhat ambiguous and weak position, as some Del might retort that the agreement as I described it was not brought out in the text. For that reason, interpreting your intentions as I do, I feel that it would be both to your and to our advantage to make the text quite clear on the points mentioned. I draw your attention, however, to the fact that the text as amended may be said to have legal consequences which the previous text did not have as it explicitly makes both the question of time and the question of the principles guiding the definition of the ‘immediate vicinity’ of the headquarters area, etc., issues which can be subject to arbitration. But, of course, they are so on the basis of our agreement, independently of what we say in the statement; at all events, if my understanding of your intentions is correct, the amendments would not introduce any new element, as I take it for granted that on such legal issues, where you feel that it would be fitting for you to consult me if any case arises, you would not object to a common appeal to arbitration if we could not agree.
“I need not stress that what I propose does not express any distrust. It is just because of my trust in your attitude to this whole issue that I feel that the clarifications suggested should not present any difficulty for you”.
Enclosure:
Points which might be included in statement to be made by SYG UN to ECOSOC:
“I and my representatives have, during the past weeks, discussed with the representative of the US to the UN and members of his staff problems which have arisen in connection with the application for admission to the US by persons desiring to come to the headquarters district. Although the discussions commenced on the point of the legal interpretation of certain provisions of the Headquarters Agreement and of the US authorizing legislation, it quickly became evident in the course of the discussions that there was agreement concerning the basic principles to be applied to the problems which had arisen, and that only matters of procedure required detailed attention. The procedural aspects have now been settled in a manner which in practice should assure the mutual satisfaction of the parties concerned.
“The basic principles which have been recognized are the following: It is certain that the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement cannot be permitted to serve as a cover to enable persons in the US to engage in activities, outside the scope of their official functions, directed [Page 300] against the host country. It is equally certain that in view of the nature of the obligations undertaken by the US as host country when entering into the Headquarters Agreement, it must not arbitrarily and for reasons known only to itself make decisions to exclude persons falling within the categories set forth in Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement, although it clearly has the right to deport such persons for abuse of privileges of residence under the agreement.
“Accordingly (procedures have been devised) (begin underline) it is intended (end underline) to make certain that, should there arise in the future any case involving a serious problem with respect to the admission to the US of persons coming to the headquarter’s district, the matter will receive the most prompt and careful consideration at the highest levels, (begin underline) that timely decisions will be made, (end underline) and that the US will consult with me and keep me as fully informed as possible to assure that the decision made is in accord with the rights of the US Government to protect its own security under the agreement. (Begin underline) Subject to the purposes of the Headquarters Agreement, (end underline) it is recognized that those rights may be exercised by granting a visa valid only for transit to and from the headquarter’s district and for sojourn in its immediate vicinity. It is further recognized that to implement that right, (begin underline) and subject to the Headquarters Agreement, (end underline) the US has authority to define (a) ‘the immediate vicinity’ of the headquarters and the necessary routes of transit; (b) activities outside the scope of official functions which would constitute an abuse of the privileges of residence, and; (c) the time and manner of expiration of the visa following the completion of the official functions.”
In our view, changes proposed by Hammarskjold are acceptable. Our position this matter remains as stated in Lodge’s letters to you dated June 24 and July 7.
Would appreciate your comments.