The United States’ refusal to grant visas to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and around 80 members of his delegation has triggered a global debate over whether the United Nations (UN) can function effectively while its headquarters remain in New York. The move has sparked mounting calls for relocating future sessions of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to a more neutral venue, such as Geneva, Switzerland, to ensure impartiality and accessibility for all member states.
The controversy erupted just weeks before the high-level annual debate at the UNGA, scheduled from September 23 to 27, with the session concluding on September 29. This year’s debates were expected to feature historic discussions and decisions regarding the recognition of Palestine as an independent state. A one-day special conference on the two-state solution, hosted by Saudi Arabia and France, was also planned for September 22 in New York. President Abbas had been due to attend, along with senior Palestinian officials, but the US decision has derailed those plans.
The Trump administration’s blanket refusal to grant visas marks a significant escalation in Washington’s opposition to Palestinian participation at the UN. Reports suggest the US denied visas to about 80 officials linked to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Observers have noted parallels with 1988, when the US blocked late Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat from travelling to New York. Then, the UNGA convened an emergency session in Geneva to ensure Arafat could deliver his address. However, this is the first time in UN history that such a comprehensive ban has been imposed on an entire delegation.
Analysts argue the decision is aimed at preventing Palestinian leaders from influencing what could be one of the most consequential UN gatherings since the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. The upcoming debates could see states such as Britain, France, Australia, and Canada move towards recognising Palestine.
Critics say Washington’s move contravenes the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obliges the host country to permit access to foreign diplomats attending UN sessions. While the agreement allows the US to deny entry for security or foreign policy reasons, applying it to exclude a whole delegation is seen as a violation of the UN’s founding principles of inclusivity and equality among nations.
“America is exploiting its role as host country to manipulate the UN process,” said one Middle East analyst. “This undermines the credibility of the UN as an independent institution and calls into question whether New York is the right location for its headquarters.”
The latest episode has reignited a long-standing debate over whether the UN should remain headquartered in New York. Advocates of relocation argue that the UN, as a body meant to represent all nations impartially, should not be subject to the policies or domestic politics of a single country.
Switzerland, long recognised for its neutrality and already home to numerous UN agencies in Geneva, is increasingly seen as the logical alternative. Moving the General Assembly, or even the entire headquarters, to Geneva would not only symbolise independence but also remove the risk of member states being denied participation due to bilateral disputes with Washington. The UN has to be out of the control of the United States if it is to function smoothly.
The refusal of visas has not only provoked outrage in the Arab and Muslim world but also unsettled many Western capitals. France, a co-sponsor of the two-state conference, expressed “deep concern” at the situation. Rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have urged the UN Secretary-General to take a firm stance to ensure equal treatment of member states.
Amnesty International issued a statement describing the US action as “a deliberate attempt to silence Palestinian representation at a critical juncture,” warning that it could set a dangerous precedent.
For Palestinians, the timing could not be more critical. The General Assembly session was seen as an opportunity to secure broader international recognition, potentially shifting the dynamics of the decades-long conflict with Israel. The US decision, critics argue, reflects Washington’s entrenched bias towards Israel and undermines global consensus-building efforts.
The 1988 Geneva session, convened after Arafat was barred, serves as an important precedent. Then, the international community swiftly adapted to uphold the principles of equal representation. Many diplomats are now urging the UN to consider a similar move, either by relocating this year’s debates or by making a long-term shift of the headquarters.
“History is repeating itself, but this time the stakes are even higher,” said a former UN official. “The refusal of visas to an entire delegation challenges the very legitimacy of the United Nations as a platform for diplomacy.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres faces a difficult balancing act. While the UN is bound by its headquarters agreement with the US, it also has a responsibility to ensure inclusivity. Some member states have already suggested an emergency resolution demanding that the venue for the 2024 General Assembly be moved to Geneva if the US does not reverse its decision.
Behind closed doors, diplomats acknowledge that relocating the UN headquarters would be an enormous logistical and political undertaking. However, a compromise—such as holding critical debates in Geneva while keeping the administrative base in New York—could emerge as a practical solution.
For many analysts, the crisis reflects deeper questions about the UN’s credibility. If one of its founding members can prevent another recognised observer state from participating, critics argue, the institution risks becoming irrelevant.
As the session approaches, pressure is mounting on both Washington and the UN leadership. The fate of Palestine’s participation—and perhaps the UN’s global standing—hangs in the balance.
