Article 92 The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all states. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed the present Convention. DONE AT VIENNA, this fourteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-five. Organization of American States On March 20, 1975, representatives of the United States and the Organization of American States (OAS) signed a new agreement on privileges and immunities (TIAS 8089; 26 UST 1024; entered into force March 20, 1975), which replaced the agreement of July 22, 1952 (TIAS 2676; 3 UST 4988). The new agreement provides that the privileges and immunities which the Government of the United States accords to diplomatic envoys accredited to it shall be extended, with corresponding conditions and obligations, to the representatives (other than those of the United States) of member states to the OAS, to the permanent observers to the OAS, and to diplomatic officers of their staffs. The 1952 agreement had extended privileges and immunities to the representatives of member states on the Council of the OAS and to members of their staffs, as authorized by the Act of July 10, 1952 (P.L. 82-486). In 1971 the status of permanent observers to the OAS was established by resolution of the OAS General Assembly, AG/RES. 50(I-O/71). Following the enactment of authorizing legislation (P.L. 93-149; 87 Sta. 560; 22 U.S.C. 288g), approved November 7, 1973, the new agreement extending privileges and immunities to permanent observers and diplomatic officers of their staffs was negotiated. It was approved on January 22, 1975, by the OAS Permanent Council, CP/RES. 130(151/75). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) On June 18, 1975, President Ford issued Executive Order 11866, designating the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privi leges, exemptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288), approved December 29, 1945. See Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 120, June 20, 1975, p. 26015. The United States participates in WIPO pursuant to the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, signed on July 14, 1967 (TIAS 6932; 21 UST 1749; entered into force for the United States Aug. 25, 1970). Tax Exemptions Permanent Missions to the United Nations Horace F. Shamwell, Jr., Deputy Assistant Legal Adviser for Management, in a letter of June 3, 1975, responded to a New York law firm's inquiry about possibly discriminatory tax treatment of property in New York City used by the Indonesian Mission to the United Nations and the Indonesian consulate from 1952 until December 1964. Mr. Shamwell's letter reads, in part: the Department of State has long taken the position that in the extension of privileges and immunities to foreign governments, domestic governmental authorities are under an obligation not to discriminate in their treatment where the applicants or recipients involved are in the same position from the standpoint of entitlement. For example, diplomatic resentatives of two different countries, each of which is a party to a multilateral treaty such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, should receive the same tax and other privileges assuming that the countries involved extend the necessary reciprocal treatment to U.S. representatives, and relevant procedural measures, such as filing for tax cards, etc., have been complied with. The State Department does not regard discrimination as existing, however, where because of additional treaties, other international agreements or domestic law, certain countries or international organizations are entitled to receive privileges over and above the norm, or, where by virtue of the provisions of the law or regulation authorizing the privileges in question, reciprocity can serve as the basis for the extension of more favorable privileges on a case-by-case basis. On this point, I refer you in addition to Article 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (TIAS 7502). Because of the insufficiency of the information provided . . . it is impossible to determine whether any true discrimination exists between the treatment of the Indonesian property on the one hand and the U.S.S.R. and People's Republic of China property on the other, or, for that matter, the property of any other foreign government. It is noted, however, that in the case of the Soviet property, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Consular Convention of 1964 (TIAS 6503) extends a tax exemption to all immovable property used for "diplomatic or consular purposes," assuming the sending state owner or lessee would be liable to pay taxes to the receiving state under its law. In the case of the P.R.C., it is not clear from your letter upon what basis exemption has been granted by the City of New York. If in fact there is an absence of any of the additional factors cited above, and the Government of Indonesia stands in the same position as the P.R.C., the State Department would favor the extension of similar treatment to the Indonesian property. Dept. of State File No. P75 0109-0206. Art. 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3248; entered into force for the U.S. Dec. 13, 1972) provides: 1. In the application of the provisions of the present Convention, the receiving state shall not discriminate as between states. 2. However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place: (a) where the receiving state applies any of the provisions of the present Convention restrictively because of a restrictive application of that provision to its mission in the sending state; (b) where by custom or agreement states extend to each other more favorable treatment than is required by the provisions of the present Convention. The U.S.-U.S.S.R. Consular Convention (TIAS 6506; 19 UST 5018; entered into force July 13, 1968) provides in Art. 21 for tax exemption of immovable property used for diplomatic or consular purposes. C. MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION United Nations Membership On July 18, 1975, the Senate of the United States agreed to Senate Resolution 214, expressing concern at attempts to expel Israel from the United Nations and stating the Senate's intention to consider seriously the implication of continued United States membership in the United Nations if such an expulsion occurred. The resolution had been introduced by Senator Hugh Scott. The text of the resolution follows: Whereas the United Nations Charter implores its members to "practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and . . . to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples," and Whereas any action to expel members for political reasons violates the spirit of the United Nations Charter: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Senate looks with disfavor and concern over persistent attempts by some nations among the so-called nonalined nations of the Third World to expel Israel from membership in the United Nations; and be it further Resolved, That if Israel is expelled from the United Nations the Senate will review all present United States commitments to the Third World nations involved in the expulsion, and will consider seriously the implication of continued membership in the United Nations under such circumstances. Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 114, July 18, 1975, pp. S13007-13008 (daily ed.). A similar resolution was introduced on July 21, 1975, in the House of Representa tives by Congressman Mario Biaggi (H. Res. 615). Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 116, p. H7177 (daily ed.). On Oct. 1, 1975, the U.N. General Assembly approved a report of the Credentials Committee accepting the formal credentials that had already been received, including those of Israel. Prior to acceptance of the report, opposition to Israeli membership was expressed by the Libyan, Saudi Arabian, and Syrian delegations. U.N. Doc. A/10270, Sept. 29, 1975. The United Nations Security Council had before it on August 6, 1975, a provisional agenda which included applications for United Nations membership from the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Republic of Korea. The Council voted on August 6 to include the Vietnamese applications on the agenda but rejected the application of the Republic of Korea. The vote was 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining; the vote on the inclusion of the South Korean application was 7 in favor, including the United States, 6 against, with 2 abstentions. The United States then voted against adoption of the agenda as a whole-that is, consideration of the Vietnamese applications. The agenda, to which the veto does not apply, was approved by a vote of 13 to 1, with 2 abstentions. Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, United States Representative to the United Nations, made the following statement regarding the August 6 vote: Today we have had before us three applicants. The United States had been prepared to see each considered by the Admissions Committee, and as the United States has made clear, we have been prepared to vote for the admission of each and all of these applicants. We were prepared to see each of them admitted if all were admitted. Clearly, the Security Council action forecloses this opportunity for the 30th General Assembly, and we can only regret it. On August 11, 1975, the Security Council voted on the draft resolutions to admit South Viet-Nam and North Viet-Nam. The United States voted against their admission, in the first use of its veto power in the Council on membership applications. The votes were 13 in favor, 1 against, with Costa Rica abstaining. Ambassador Moynihan made the following statement in explanation of the United States veto: The United States today has, for the first time, vetoed the admission of a new member to the United Nations. The veto was repeated a second time. This is an action my country hoped it would never take. As far back as 1948, in a resolution sponsored by Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, who had served as a U.S. delegate to the first General Assembly, the U.S. Senate special ly called on our Executive to forswear our use of the veto in all questions involving the admission of new members. In 1949 the executive branch undertook to do just that. And so it is no small matter for us that we have felt forced to break with our practice of 30 years. . . . ... What in the end changed our mind was the decisions of the Council taken at its 1834th meeting on August 6, 1975. It became absolutely clear on that occasion that the Security Council, far from being prepared to support the principle of universal membership, was denying to one applicant even the right to have its case considered. Never before has the Council gone so far as to refuse even to consider the application of an entity so widely regarded as a state as to have been accepted as a member of numerous specialized agencies, and also, on four separate occasions in the past, to have been proposed for membership by a clear majority of this same Security Council. the United States had made clear that we were prepared to vote for the admission of each and all of the three applicants then before us, which is to say the United States would have voted for the admission of the Republic of South Korea, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam. And I would like to take this occasion to welcome the representatives of those countries to this Council chamber. a State Department spokesman had indicated that the United States would be equally willing to vote for the admission of North Korea as well. We would have done so in plain pursuit of the principle of universality. But... we will have nothing to do with selective universality, a principle which in practice admits only new members acceptable to the totalitarian states.. The United Nations should be as near as possible to universal in membership. As new nations are formed, they should be seen as having a presumed right to membership, given their fealty to the charter. ... See U.N. Doc. S/PV.1834, Aug. 6, 1975; U.N. Doc. S/PV.1835 and U.N. Doc. S/ PV.1836, Aug. 11, 1975. See also Press Release USUN-82(75), Aug. 6, 1975; Press Release USUN-83(75), Aug. 11, 1975; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1890, Sept. 15, 1975, pp. 421-422. The General Assembly of the United Nations, on September 19, 1975, adopted by a vote of 123 to 0, with 9 abstentions (U.S.), a resolution (A/RES/3366 (XXX)) requesting the Security Council "to reconsider immediately and favorably" the applications of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South VietNam for admission to membership in the United Nations. Ambassador Moynihan made a statement in plenary in which he reiterated the readiness of the United States for the admission of all |