The recent decision by U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz to bar PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from entry into the United States can best be summed up by two quotes. The Swedish government, in an appeal to Washington to rethink the American position, called the move “unwise and unreasonable.” Robert Hunter, a Middle East expert who once worked with the National Security Council, was somewhat more blunt—he termed the American denial of a visa for Arafat “stupid.”

Arafat requested a visa at the U.S. embassy in Tunisia last Friday in order to enter the United States this week. His reason? The chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization wished to address the United Nations (located in New York) about the recent PLO declaration of an independent Palestinian state.

This declaration was announced by the PLO’s Palestine National Council in Algiers earlier this month and included the acceptance of UN Resolution 242—which recognizes Israel as a state—as a peace offering and bargaining chip.

Shultz took a day to think about the implications of allowing the chairman of an oftentimes terrorist group into the United States. On Saturday, he announced his verdict: No visa for Arafat.

The decision was immediately denounced by other member contries of the UN. Then on Tuesday, the UN adopted an Arab-proposed resolution to move the UN to Geneva for a session two weeks from now, at which Arafat would be able to make his address. The resolution was approved by a vote of 121-2 (with the United States and Israel as the dissenters) and went to the full General Assembly Wednesday for ratification.

Far too many cases can be made against Shultz’s decision for the United States to ignore the pleas of the rest of the UN.

In becoming the host of the UN, the United States made some implicit concessions. If the UN is to be housed in New York, Americans must allow the international body to conduct its business uninhibited, unless national security is at stake.

Such is not the case in this situation. Our country is inconveniencing others by unfairly forcing the UN session to be moved elsewhere.

Arafat was allowed into the United States in 1974 for a UN address—from whence stems the disparity between then and now? State Department spokesman Charles Redman told reporters Monday that “circumstances are different,” but offered no elaboration on how the times have changed.

Redman did wax diplomatic in saying “there are PLO spokesmen able to state their position freely in New York.”

Shultz’s department believes Arafat’s organization is terrorist (which it is) and an immediate threat to American security if Arafat visits the United States (which it isn’t). So the chairman cannot speak in America, but his spokesman can. That’s brilliant!

In making his decision, Shultz ignored the state departments’ Middle East experts, National Security Adviser Colin Powell and Undersecretary Michael Armacost. Ronald Reagan and George Bush, while not consulted before the decision, both said they supported Shultz’s move.

The Reagan administration’s hardline stance on terrorism has been largely effective but definitely is out-of-sorts in this case. Shultz is drawing world attention to U.S. stubbornness when the emphasis should be on the PLO’s declaration of independence.

Allow me to borrow one more quote, this one from a Chicago Tribune editorial that ran Tuesday: “…if bloody hands are a disqualifier (for even temporary entrance into the United States), the Immigration and Naturalization Service is going to be very busy turning away UN diplomats.”

It might now be too late for the United States to redeem itself from this foolish decision. But American diplomats, in the future, should save the international dignity of our country by helping to fulfill, not ignore, our 40-year-old obligations to the UN.