Widespread criticism of Arafat visa decision

Press, 1 December 1988, Page 8

Widespread criticism of Arafat visa decision

NZPA-Reuter Washington Arab protesters called the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, an enemy of peace after he defended his decision to bar the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s chairman, Yasser Arafat, from the United States.

Mr Shultz’s decision to prevent Mr Arafat from addressing the opening session of a United Nations debate on Palestine sparked criticism in foreign capitals and American newspapers and a protest in Washington. Some 50 Arab-Ameri-cans with signs saying “Shultz, enemy of peace” demonstrated outside the State Department on Tuesday and the Council of Presidents of ArabAmerican Organisations urged him in a letter to reverse what they called “the wrong decision at the wrong time.” In his first comments since Mr Arafat’s visa request was denied on Saturday, Mr Shultz defended his decision and President Reagan gave his support. “To some extent the opposition suggests how important it was to decide what was decided and to make it so clear what the basis was — the basis being our concern about terrorism,” Mr Shultz said.

President Reagan said he supported Mr Shultz, a White House spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, told reporters, “The President is aware of the reaction of various other countries to the decision on Yasser Arafat, including the allied positions, but he remains firm in his belief that the Secretary of State made the right decision.” Mr Shultz, who spoke at a federal construction site just outside Washington, said his decision would

not deny Palestinians the ability to speak for. themselves at the United Nations. “We want to hear what they have to say.” He also said the United States would attend a special General Assembly session on the Palestinian question if Arab countries succeeded in moving it to Vienna or Geneva so that Mr Arafat could speak. Officials at the United Nations in New York said the General Assembly would probably likely de-

bate the Palestine question in Geneva on December 13 and 14, permitting Mr Arafat to take part. Mr Shultz said he was not surprised by the firestorm of criticism sparked by his decision in the Soviet Union, the Arab countries and much of Western Europe. Moscow and numerous other countries said the decision violated the 1947 pact setting up United Nations headquarters in New York — a point also made by the United Nations Secretary-Gen-eral, Javier Perez de Cuellar, and General Assembly president, Dante Caputo. Israel and Jewish organisations supported Mr Shultz’s action. American newspapers generally decried Mr Shultz’s decision even as they acknowledged the ties which Mr Shultz alleges the P.L.O. has had to terrorism. The “Los Angeles Times” was typical when it called the ban on Mr Arafat a propa-

ganda coup for the P.L.O.

Mr Shultz allowed “emotion to override good judgment by letting his personal distaste for Yasser Arafat trigger an unnecessary confrontation with the United Nations,” the newspaper said. The legal committee of the General Assembly urged the United States to reverse its denial of a visa to Mr Arafat. The resolution, proposed by the Arab States, was adopted by 121 votes to two. Only the United States and Israel dissented and Britain cast the sole abstention. The resolution, which deplored the American decision and declared it a violation of legal obligations under the 1947 agreement that established the United Nations headquarters in New York, will go to the full General Assembly for ratification today. United Nations delegates said they did not expect the United States to reverse its decision.