Word: shultz
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Shultz intended to depict Arafat as a common terrorist, he failed. Arafat emerged from the confrontation with his reputation enhanced -- as something of a martyr to Shultz's intransigence. If the Secretary sought to deny Arafat the kind of prominence that a U.N. visit would bring, he produced the opposite: a publicity bonanza for the chairman. "Had the U.S. let him come, he would have been news for a day or two," said an Arab diplomat. "Now he will be a hot news item for weeks." When the General Assembly convenes in Geneva, Arafat can expect to bask...
While the P.L.O. appeared to be the winner in the diplomatic skirmish, the Reagan Administration emerged as a clear loser. Rarely had the U.S. been the target of such overwhelming international criticism. Even Washington's most loyal allies in Western Europe lined up against Shultz, challenging the legality and the political soundness of his position. While Britain abstained from both U.N. votes, British officials made it clear that they too favored an Arafat appearance before the U.N. Israel alone stood with Washington, casting the only other no vote and hailing Shultz's refusal as a "brave decision...
Many State Department officials, eager to distance themselves from what they regarded as a peevish stance, characterized Shultz's no to Arafat as a "personal decision." They were worried that it would undermine the peace efforts of moderate Arabs and cast doubt on the U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement in the Middle East. They also fretted that the Shultz rejection made a mockery of America's commitment to free speech and jeopardized the Reagan Administration's recently improved relationship with the U.N. Nonetheless, both Reagan and President-elect George Bush supported the decision, although Bush made it clear that...
...legality of Shultz's decision remained in dispute. While the State Department has sole discretion for extending visas to foreigners, the first of last week's U.N. resolutions maintains that the anti-Arafat ruling violates the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the U.S. and the U.N. That accord states that the U.S. will not keep out anyone who has business before the world body. Among international lawyers, the consensus was that the U.S. had breached its responsibility. "It is quite clear that the U.S. decision is wrong legally," said Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State and an international lawyer. U.S. courts...
...claim that Arafat's presence would endanger national security was, as put forward by the State Department, self-contradictory. It was based on an ambiguously worded U.S. law that, according to Shultz, conditions the Headquarters Agreement on a U.S. right "to safeguard its own security." Shultz's statement denying Arafat's visa asserted that P.L.O. members were excluded from the U.S. "by virtue of their affiliation in an organization which engages in terrorism." One paragraph later, the statement pointed out that since visas are routinely issued to members of the P.L.O. permanent observer mission at the U.N., Arafat's group...