U.S. acting too fast on PLO's UN office

Once again Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese's Justice Department is actingwith unnecessary hurry in a cause of at best dubious legality.

The cause, mandated by congressional action, is the enforcedclosure of the United Nations office of the Palestine LiberationOrganization, as demanded by a short-sighted, partly politicallymotivated congressional resolution.

We have no trouble with the closure of the PLO's Washingtonoffice, also demanded by the resolution. But the UN situation isdifferent. Under the agreement that brought the world organization'sheadquarters to New York City, the United States had agreed that thiscountry's political or diplomatic preferences could not bar anyone'spresence at the United Nations.

The United States and Israel are totally isolated on this issue.Even the staunchest U.S. allies in Europe and the Far East have takenstrong exception to the Reagan administration's action. And theState Department itself is in disagreement with Mr. Meese.

We believe the United States should submit to arbitration, asthe United Nations has asked and is provided for in the headquartersagreement in case of disputes. If the arbitration ruling should goagainst Washington, as it probably would, since the legal case forthe U.S. position seems thin, the Reagan administration can seek torenegotiate the headquarters agreement at the earliest possibleopportunity to separate the status of national governments and theirrepresentatives from observers and other nongovernmentalorganizations.

Simultaneously, and without delay, Secretary of State GeorgeShultz should use his influence with moderate Arab governments tohave the PLO further refine its policy on terrorism to excludeattacks on civilians in Israel (under such pressure it has alreadymodified its official policy to exclude targets outside Israel).Unlike before, Mr. Shultz, in view of his recent controversialgesture in meeting with two noted Palestinian-Americans, may have abetter chance of the PLO heeding the advice.

Such a course of action would serve U.S. aims and interestswithout coming into collision with the valid requirements of UNoperations. For Washington to act unilaterally without recourse tothe specified legal methods of dispute resolution would be badpolitically, legally and morally.