Cheap Shot by a Poor Host

Congressional sponsors of a measure demanding closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s observer mission at the United Nations have been assured by the Justice Department that Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III is ready to do their bidding. The department feels that it has no choice but to carry out the will of Congress. But of course it does have a choice, as even a cursory look at existing law makes clear. It can and ought to tell Congress that what it wants runs head on into the legal obligations of the host-nation agreement that Washington signed with the United Nations more than 40 years ago.

Congress voted overwhelmingly to shut down both the PLO’s U.N. mission in New York and its information office in Washington because of the organization’s history of involvement with terrorism. To be sure, no one has ever claimed that either office engaged in any criminal activity. Instead there was much huffing and puffing about the solemn sovereign right of the United States to show that, by golly, it could get tough with terrorism. Among the chief huffers and puffers sponsoring this cheap-shot legislation were four presidential candidates--Rep. Jack Kemp and Sen. Bob Dole on the Republican side, and Rep. Richard Gephardt and Sen. Paul Simon on the Democratic.

The main promoter of the anti-PLO legislation was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying and propaganda group that enjoys considerable influence on Capitol Hill. AIPAC has a narrow field of interest. No doubt that’s why Congress’ anti-terrorism crusade stopped short of trying also to shut down the U.N. offices of Iran, Libya and Syria and the observer mission of North Korea, all of which are officially identified by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism.

The United Nations has indicated that it will go to court to try to stop what it sees as a flagrant violation of American commitments under the 1947 host-nation agreement. A much better way to resolve this embarrassing mess would be for Congress to move quickly to rescind its ill-advised action. It is ridiculous that the legislature of a nation that advocates the rule of law should simply ignore laws that it finds politically inconvenient. It is intolerable that a nation that preaches the virtues of diversity and free expression should try to silence those whose views it may find uncongenial. Congress’ blunder has nothing to do with combatting terrorism. It has everything to do with respect for law and for principles.