210. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Talbot) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Bundy)0
Dear Bill: With the increasing concern both here and in Tehran about criminal jurisdiction over American military personnel in Iran, our two Departments are, as you know, drafting a joint instruction to the Embassy in Tehran. Although the exact details of the instruction have not been completed, we will probably suggest to the Iranians that all members of our military missions in Iran be considered “administrative and technical personnel” as defined in the recent Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities.1 If and when the Iranians accept this proposal, criminal jurisdiction will in effect be given to the American authorities.
We will be greatly relieved if some means of protection such as this can be agreed upon. We know, however, Iran’s long history of suspicion about all forms of foreign involvement, especially any involvement which seems to them to be an infringement on Iranian sovereignty. Once it is agreed upon and becomes public knowledge, this jurisdictional agreement will be considered by some articulate Iranians as just such an infringement. We, therefore, believe it is incumbent upon all Americans who will be protected by this agreement to do everything possible to abide by Iranian laws. If we abide by these laws as best we can now as well as after a jurisdictional agreement is reached, we will have helped immensely in accomplishing two ends: to be able to approach negotiations with the feeling that we have done all we can to abide by the law and normal precautions and, secondly, to be able to exercise our rights once agreement is reached without too much fear of Iranian reactions.
In addition to normal careful driving practices, the requirement of a valid driver’s license, and other accepted precautions, we believe that all Americans in Iran must have adequate liability insurance. The absence of such insurance is an invitation, at the least, to adverse publicity [Page 520] and possibly to political complications. The recent accident and confinement of Specialist 4th Class Frederick E. L. Adams have brought to our attention the fact that ARMISH/MAAG does not require liability insurance for “official duty driving”. Adams’ errand, at the time of the accident, seems to have fallen within that category.
We, however, do not believe that ARMISH/MAAG regulations on insurance are in full agreement with the spirit and intention of existing guidance from the Operations Coordinating Board and instructions from the Embassy in Tehran. Although the OCB guidance is only for “private motor vehicles”, ARMISH/MAAG personnel use the official cars assigned to them for both official and private purposes with no well-defined line between the two. Considering all of this, it is our opinion that liability insurance should be required for all ARMISH/MAAG drivers for all types of driving. Adequate liability coverage is possible in Iran through individual policies which could be arranged by each driver. Also, the possibility of a master policy covering all military personnel operating motor vehicles both on-duty and off-duty would be worth investigating. Whatever the means, I hope full coverage can be arranged for all military personnel for all types of driving. This, plus renewed emphasis on extremely “defensive” driving habits, will be of real help in negotiating and later implementing a jurisdictional agreement with Iran.2
Sincerely,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 711.551/3–962. Official Use Only. Drafted by Greene (NEA/GTI) and cleared in draft by Colonel Kettelhut (NEA/NR), Winfree (G/PM), and Pender (L/SFP).↩
- The joint State-Defense message, sent to the Embassy in Tehran in telegram 626, March 17, conveyed the text of a note responding to an Iranian Foreign Ministry note of February 7 in which Iran had agreed to a 1-year extension for the American Military Advisory Mission. The U.S. note conveyed U.S. agreement to the extension and also proposed that the United States and Iran reach an understanding covering the status of U.S. forces in Iran along the lines described in Talbot’s letter printed here. (Ibid., 611.887/3–1462)↩
- The U.S. note was delivered to the Iranian Foreign Ministry on March 19. For text, see United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 776, pp. 289–290. Additional documentation relating to the status of forces question is in Department of State, Central Files 611.887, 711.551 and 788.5–MSP; and in Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OASD/ISA Files: FRC 64 A 2382, Iran 121–333 1961, and ibid., OSD Files: FRC 66 A 3542, Iran 1962. See also Supplement, the compilation on Iran.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩