NEW YORK, Nov. 29, Reuter — from coast to coast and with few exceptions, U.S. newspapers on Tuesday condemned the decision to deny PLO leader Yasser Arafat a visa to enter the United States and address the U.N. as a major foreign policy blunder.
Saying Secretary of State George Shultz had “erred badly” in banning Arafat, the New York Times said “the decision does nothing to encourage diplomacy.”
“It shifts the focus from the PLO’s inability to spear clearly about peace with Israel to America’s unwillingness to listen, it insults the U.N.” it said in an editorial,
“Israel’s applause for the ban seems premature — few countries have a greater stake in assuring a full, fair and civil hearing for unpopular views,” it added.
The Los Angeles Times said the ban was tantamount to a propaganda coup for the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Shultz allowed “emotion to override good judgment by letting his personal distaste for Yasser Arafat trigger an unnecessary confrontation with the United Nations,” it said.
“What all this adds up to is an international propaganda coup for the PLO,” it said, adding that Arafat probably gained more by being denied entry than if he had been allowed to come.
The Washington Post said Shultz’s stand against terrorism was justifiable but that his decision to ban Arafat was wrong.
“Yasser Arafat is not your ordinary politically controversial v applicant. His group kills people,” it said.
But alternatives are available that are consistent with both the pursuit of peace and the struggle against terrorism,”
‘The Miami Herald branded the U.S, move “an irresponsible act that virtually dooms immediate prospects for progress toward peace in the Mideast.”
The Chicago Tribune called the decision ‘a mistake” because the United States serves as host for the U.N. and therefore forfeits some of its right to decide who may cross its borders.
“If bloody hands were a disqualifier, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is going to be busy turning away U.N. diplomats,” the Daily said.
The Philadelphia Inquirer echoed the same theme:
“Mr, Shultz’s rationale . . . was that Mr. Arafat has condoned terrorism, Mr. Shultz abhors terrorism. So do us all,” it said. “But lots of unsavory characters can be found in the corridors of the United Nations and the U.S. has accepted their presence as part of its U.N. obligation.”
“Whatever one’s feelings toward Yasser Arafat and the PLO, for the United States to deny him the right to address the United Nations during the planned debate on Palestine is wrong,” the San Jose Mercury News of California said
“The United States, more than any other nation, stands for free speech, our commitment to open political discourse is one of the principal reasons the United Nations is here, and Americans have every right to be proud that it is. The United Nations, as much as the Statue of Liberty, has become a symbol of our values.”
Article extracted from this publication >> December 2, 1988
