When the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York City next week, discussions about the conflict in Gaza and the future of Palestinian statehood are set to take center stage. However, Palestinian leaders themselves will be conspicuously absent.
This comes after the Trump administration denied visas to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and his entire delegation. As the host nation for the U.N. headquarters in New York City, the United States is responsible for issuing visas to attending leaders and diplomats.
The U.S. State Department cited national security concerns as the reason for denying Mr. Abbas’s visa.
Notably, on Monday—a day before the General Assembly officially opens—France, Britain, Canada, and Australia are anticipated to formally recognize the state of Palestine at a conference involving over 100 nations focused on a two-state solution. The United States has expressed opposition to this conference, asserting that Palestinian statehood should be determined through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Let’s delve into the details of this significant diplomatic standoff.
Key Questions:
- What exactly does the agreement between the U.S. and the U.N. say?
- Does the U.S. truly have the power to deny entry to world leaders and U.N. diplomats?
- Have similar diplomatic bans occurred previously?
Understanding the U.S.-U.N. Headquarters Agreement
Back in 1947, a 16-page document known as the Headquarters Agreement was signed by the United States and the United Nations. This agreement gained federal law status after being approved by the U.S. President and Congress through a joint resolution.
Section 11 of this crucial agreement explicitly states that “the federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district.” This broad access extends to representatives of member states and anyone officially invited to the U.N. headquarters by the organization or its associated agencies.
Furthermore, the agreement specifies that these visa provisions apply “irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States,” indicating a commitment to unrestricted access regardless of political tensions.
Any disagreements between the United Nations and the United States regarding host-country responsibilities are typically handled by a 19-member committee composed of various member states. If an issue remains unresolved, it can be advanced to arbitration.
Stéphane Dujarric, a U.N. spokesman, stated, “We have raised this issue with the United States based on the obligations under the Headquarters Agreement and sought clarification.” He added, “We are concerned about the possible consequences of the decision.”
U.S. Authority: Can it Bar U.N. Diplomats and Leaders?
This particular question has been a source of ongoing disagreement for a long time.
While U.S. lawmakers ratified the Headquarters Agreement, they concurrently enacted separate legislation clarifying that the agreement doesn’t preclude the United States from protecting its national security. This legislation asserts:
“Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security and completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity.”
Both the United Nations and numerous legal experts contend that the United States is in breach of this agreement. They maintain that the U.S. is legally obligated to issue visas and guarantee unrestricted access to the U.N., arguing that the host-country agreement contains no loopholes and its language is unequivocal.
Larry Johnson, a former assistant secretary general for legal affairs at the U.N., noted, “There is an underlying dispute between the U.N. and U.S. that has been there since 1947.”
Historical Precedents: Past U.S. Denials of Diplomatic Entry
The only previous instance where the United States refused entry to a head of government for the General Assembly was in 1988, when a visa was denied to then-Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat. However, Mr. Arafat successfully attended subsequent U.N. meetings in later years.
Robert A. Wood, who served as a deputy ambassador to the United Nations during the Biden administration, explained that visa restrictions and delays sometimes occur for delegations from nations like Russia, Iran, China, and Venezuela due to intelligence or security concerns. Nevertheless, an outright denial or a threat to refuse access to a head of government remains exceptionally uncommon.
“This is a very controversial issue,” Mr. Wood commented, “and whenever we have had this issue brought up about denying visas it’s always the question of whether we have the legal right to do it.”
Russian and Venezuelan diplomats frequently allege that the United States intentionally prolongs the visa process, causing delays that result in delegates missing their intended events. This year, even delegates from Brazil, a nation that has resisted U.S. pressure regarding the criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, experienced significant delays, receiving some of their visas only days before the General Assembly commenced.
In 2014, the U.S. denied a visa to Iran’s chosen ambassador due to his involvement in the 1979 American diplomat hostage crisis.
Iranian diplomats in the U.S. are subject to severe movement restrictions, typically confined to a 25-mile radius around the U.N. building. These limitations can be even more stringent; for instance, in 2019, Iran’s then-foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was prohibited from traveling just 20 blocks north to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to visit his ailing ambassador.