VZCZCXYZ0006
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1939/01 2841902
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 111902Z OCT 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0409

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001939 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
VISAS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR IO/UNP - EDMONDSON/ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/10/2026 
TAGS: OFDP CVIS UN
SUBJECT: PROCESSING OF G VISAS AND MEETING U.S. HOST 
COUNTRY OBLIGATIONS 
 
REF: A. A) STATE 132282 
     ¶B. B) STATE 124954 
 
Classified By: Deputy U.S. Representative, Alejandro D. Wolff, reason 1 
.4 (C,D) 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and Action Request.  The USG's time frame 
for responding to SAO clearance requests for G visa 
applicants appears to some governments and UN lawyers to 
conflict with USG obligations as host country to the UN not 
to impede travel of individuals coming to the UN on official 
business.  USUN asks Department, to the extent possible, to 
consider as a solution giving much higher priority to 
expeditously clearing SAO requests involving G visa 
applicants and seeks Department's guidance in responding to 
repeated charges by affected UN Missions that USG delays in 
visa issuance violate international law, including the US-UN 
Headquarters Agreement. Finally, recognizing the importance 
of security considerations in the administrative processing 
of all visas, including G visas, post seeks Department's 
determination of what period of time, from the submission of 
the G visa application through to visa issuance, would be 
sufficient to conclude necessary administrative processing 
and also meet our host country obligations to issue visas 
promptly and not to impede travel.  See action request at 
paragraph 9.  End Summary and Action request. 
 
The view from the UN - the 15 day "rule" in a post-9/11 era 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶2. (SBU) Over the past two to three years, several UN 
delegations, whose nationals are subject to SAO clearance 
requirements (e.g., Russia, Cuba, Syria) have sharply and 
repeatedly criticized the U.S. in meetings of the 19-member 
UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country (a/k/a the 
Host Country Committee-HCC) for its failure to issue visas in 
a timely manner consistent with our host country obligations 
under international law.  Over a period of many years, an 
unwritten understanding has arisen among other UN delegations 
and the UN Secretariat (including its Office of Legal 
Affairs), that 15 working days, from the date a visa 
application is submitted until it is issued,  is a reasonable 
time frame for the host country to issue visas to those 
coming to the UN on official business, and that the host 
country's issuance of visas within the 15 working days time 
frame is consistent with its obligations under the US-UN 
Headquarters Agreement and other relevant international 
instruments. 
 
¶3. (U) The Russian Mission, in particular, continues to press 
for a shorter time period for issuing visas to G applicants 
(e.g., 10 working days), asserting that the long time period 
required for 'administrative processing' of its delegates' 
visa applications makes it virtually impossible for the 
Russian Federation to assign late substitutions to its 
delegation lists for UN meetings, thus depriving the Russian 
Federation of its desired and most effective representation 
at these UN meetings. 
 
¶4. (SBU) In an effort to meet our host country obligations 
and to eliminate or at least reduce the volume of complaints 
from affected delegations, USUN devotes considerable effort 
to fielding inquiries from affected delegations regarding 
applicants who, near or just after the 15 working days from 
the time applications were submitted on their behalf, have 
not yet received their G visas and are therefore unable to 
proceed to official UN meetings.  When necessary, USUN 
requests expedited SAO clearances.  USUN has cautioned 
delegations in the Host Country Committee and by circular 
diplomatic note that the post-9/11 security environment makes 
it necessary in some cases for visa issuance to take longer 
than 15 working days, and delegates should apply for visas as 
soon as possible.  However, we remain concerned that if the 
Committee were to submit the issue to the UN Office of Legal 
Affairs (OLA), the OLA could issue a legal opinion noting 
that host country visa issuance for diplomats coming to the 
UN that takes longer than 15 working days is not prompt, that 
it constitutes an impediment to their transit to and from UN 
headquarters, and that the U.S. thus violates Article IV 
Section 11 of the U.S.-UN Headquarters Agreement and/or some 
other provision of international law. 
 
Recent developments in SAO requests 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5. (SBU/NOFORN) Ref A provides, inter alia, for inserting the 
UNGA acronym into SAO requests so that prospective UNGA 
attendees to the fall session (September 12 through 
mid-December) can have their visa applications processed more 
 
 
quickly.  But Ref B notes that the current processing time 
for Visas Bear requests (which includes G visa applicants 
coming to the UN throughout the year, not only during the 
fall session of the UNGA) averages about 18 days.  This 18 
days refers solely to the time required for obtaining SAO 
clearance.  The actual visa process from submission of 
application to issuance is, of course, even longer.  Ref B 
also reports that CA is very concerned about processing 
student visa applications that are subject to Visas Donkey 
SAO requests in a timely manner, and that the Department will 
now give priority in providing SAO Visas Donkey clearances to 
applicants for student, vocational school and exchange 
visitor visas.  The provisions of 9 FAM Appendix G relating 
to special clearance procedures clearly assume a period for 
SAO clearances that make it difficult in many cases for a 
consular officer to issue a G visa within 15 working days 
from the submission of an application, as is currently 
assumed and expected by UN delegations and the UN Secretariat 
in New York. 
 
¶6. (C) USUN has also noticed that bilateral or other 
considerations also can delay visa issuance in a manner which 
appears to some governments and UN lawyers to conflict with 
our obligations as host country to the UN.  In some cases, 
clearance is not sent to the issuing post until the day the 
visitor proposes to travel or the day his or her meeting is 
to convene.  In other cases, actors in the clearance process 
do not signal their agreement to issue a visa until after the 
meeting in question has ended.  Both types of action can be 
seen to constitute a "pocket veto," which also appears to 
contravene our host country obligations.  Under a 
longstanding "modus vivendi" with the UN, it is understood 
that we can deny issuing a visa to an individual coming to 
the UN on official business provided that the Department, at 
the highest level, has decided that issuance would be 
inimical to our national security.  Such a decision is 
reached by means of an action memorandum to the seventh 
floor.  Over the past four to five years, the "pocket veto" 
has eroded the "modus vivendi," again putting the host 
country at odds with the UN. 
 
U.S. obligations as Host Country to the UN 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶7.  (U) The U.S. as host country to the UN has obligations 
under the U.S.-UN Headquarters Agreement (1947), the 
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United 
Nations (1946), and other documents.  Specifically, the 
Headquarters Agreement in Article IV - Communications and 
Transit, Section 11 states that "(t)he federal...authorities 
of the United States shall not impose any impediments to 
transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) 
representatives of Members or officials of the United 
Nations...or the families of such representatives or 
officials."  Section 13(a) states that "(l)aws and 
regulations in force in the United States regarding the entry 
of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere 
with the privileges referred to in Section 11.  When visas 
are required for persons referred to in that Section, they 
shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible." 
 
¶8. (U) Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention on the 
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations states that 
"Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary 
organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by 
the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions 
and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, 
enjoy the following privileges and immunities:...(d) 
exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from 
immigration restrictions...in the state they are visiting or 
through which they are passing in the exercise of their 
functions." Section 16 states that in this article the 
expression "representatives" shall be deemed to include all 
delegates, deputy delegates, advisers, technical experts and 
secretaries of delegations. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶9. (SBU/NOFORN) Action request - USUN is concerned that the 
FAM and time frames applied by the Department in clearing SAO 
requests for G visa applicants coming to the UN or its 
specialized agencies on official business may be deemed 
inconsistent with our obligations as host country under 
various relevant international instruments.  To minimize that 
risk, USUN urges that G visa applicants be given higher 
priority in expediting SAO clearances, to contain allegations 
that the USG does not fully comply with its obligations, and 
so that we can eliminate or reduce significantly the 
complaints of affected delegations in this regard.  USUN also 
seeks Department's guidance in responding to repeated charges 
by affected delegations that USG delays in visa issuance 
 
 
violate our host country obligations. Finally, USUN seeks 
Department's determination of what time period, (from the 
time an applicant submits an application for an official G 
visa until it is issued, including all the required 
administrative processing), is sufficient and necessary for 
the U.S. to meet its host country obligations. 
BOLTON