55. Telegram From the Embassy in Iran to the Department of State1
499. Ref Embtels 448, 487 and 495.2 Vienna Convention—Status Bill. Prime Minister Mansur, in a comprehensive foreign policy speech before the Senate Saturday,3 for the first time gave public explanations regarding background and coverage of the Status Bill. Speech was prominently featured by press, rebroadcast over the radio, and has perceptibly improved public climate surrounding the status question.
As Kayhan International put it, Mansur’s speech “in effect made amends for government’s handling of the bill, as far as public was concerned. The administration’s hush-hush line had provided fuel for flickering [Page 109] embers of whatever opposition there is in the country. That fire at one moment threatened to spread, with opposition apparently out to exploit what they thought to be government’s Achilles heel. And because exact terms of the bill were not known, and it was not possible to determine the extent of immunity granted, the critics, working from their pulpit sanctuaries or fifth column hideouts, spread the lie that very independence and sovereignty of Iran were being bartered.”
Among Deputies and Senators, there is rejoicing that the air has been cleared by Mansur’s statement.
Unfortunately, however. PriMin’s speech contained not only helpful statements but also number of glaring inaccuracies which look good to the public but apparently involved serious misrepresentation of the bill’s coverage. In particular, he was reported to have said three things which are wrong: (1) that, whereas the U.S. had asked dependents to be covered, they are excluded from coverage by the wording of the law; (2) that only on-duty offenses are covered by immunity, apparently without distinction between civil and criminal offenses; and (3) that, although the US had asked all members of advisory missions to be covered, the law actually covers only those who fulfill technical advisory functions.
Ziai, Chairman of Majlis Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledged to us Sunday that these statements correspond neither to the law nor, in particular, to the legislative history. FonMin told us privately on the same day that he was aware Mansur had said things that were not true; but we could not rely on Aram to set things right.
Accordingly, I sought urgent interview with Mansur yesterday and, while congratulating him on the popular success he had scored with his speech, asked him how we are to report certain apparent mistakes which might be due to misquotation by the press but which could cause future trouble. He backed down all along the way. Regarding families, he said he might have used the wrong word but had meant to refer to members of household who are not members of family. (I believe he really had believed that members of the family were not covered, but realized his error when I pointed out to him the relevant provision of the convention. It is also possible that others beforehand had alerted him to his mistake. He subsequently phoned to say he was arranging to have official record of his remarks amended to make clear he was referring to non-American members of household.) As for on-duty or off-duty distinction, he had clearly said, he claimed, that this applies only to civil liability. And as for coverage of members of advisory missions, he had only meant to say that Iranian employees of those missions cannot enjoy immunities.
I then asked what he intended to do to rectify the erroneous public impression which his remarks had created, adding that I had refused to answer press queries as to whether Embassy agreed with PriMin until I had chance to talk with him. His reply was instantaneous: by no means [Page 110] must there be further public discussion of this matter. Mistakes could be corrected by amending the record. He did not even wish the Foreign Ministry to be brought into the matter for time being. PriMin said he had certain difficulties due to fact that Vienna Convention had inadvertently been submitted to Majlis minus one article. When this and other elements of the record had been tidied up, GOI would formally notify Embassy that law applying provisions of Vienna Convention to members U.S. Military Advisory Mission was in effect. The full provisions of the convention would apply. I said I was glad to hear this, as both U.S. and Iran had suffered from this long drawn-out process, and we must make certain that the goal we have both been seeking is fully achieved. Furthermore, when General Eckhardt had recently discussed matter with Shah, latter had given no indication at all that he had in mind anything but the full application of the provisions of the convention to the US Military Advisory Missions.
This incident clearly demonstrates importance that must be attached to early formal clarification of the coverage obtained through the status bill, and notably the continued validity of our original exchange of notes. It also shows timeliness of our recommendation in Embtel 495, which involves some sweetening of pill to obtain the desired result. If the Foreign Ministry balks at providing the necessary languages we must hold the Prime Minister to his word and if necessary go the Shah. We have been fighting too long to achieve this coverage for our military people, and received too much in the way of unfavorable public repercussions, largely as a result of the ineptitude of the GOI in handling this matter. To risk losing our full goal at this stage of the game owing to lack of precision or effort by some Iranian officials to engage in back-tracking maneuvers.