In international law, we have the Vienna Convention of 1963. This Convention defines matters relating to embassies. Article 40 of the Convention provides immunity for embassies and consulates. For this reason, when we talk about the physical immunity of embassies or the immunity of diplomats – diplomats fall under Article 31 of the Convention – diplomats are covered in one article and the location of embassies are covered in a separate article. When talking about this immunity, we make reference to Articles 40 and 31. However, the Convention also has Article 41 that says when a country receives this immunity it must observe two matters.
The first thing is respecting the laws of the host country. So, even though an embassy has immunity, this does not mean that it can violate the laws of the host country. We can’t violate the laws and have immunity at the same time. The second point is that they should not interfere in the host country’s internal affairs. And this is also an important point that is included in Article 41 of the Vienna Convention of 1963. With regard to the Spy Den, the Americans had been violating Article 41 for many years. That is, they violated Iran’s laws and interfered in the country’s internal affairs far more than what is considered to be just interference.
First of all, they staged a coup d’état in 1953 and changed the government of Iran, which is a greater crime than interfering in a country’s internal affairs. If one reads all these memoirs of the US ambassadors who were here those years or the documents found in the Spy Den, there are hundreds and thousands of documents that prove their interference in Iran’s internal affairs. So, we can see that the Americans were not abiding by the Vienna Convention of 1963. They have not abided by it for years. They were not in the Convention. And when you violate the Convention in such an extensive manner, it is no longer possible to tell others that they should implement Article 40 or Article 31 of the Convention.
Yes, attacking an embassy is an offence. This is covered in Articles 31 and 40 of the Convention. However, that building was not an embassy. It was being used as a spy den for many years according to the thousands of documents that are proof of this. This is the first point, not the second one. Plus, what the students did was not out of excitement. It was a very rational move. Why? Because they were preventing the violation of that same Convention. In other words, when you are sure that the Americans are violating international laws, preventing the violation of those laws is not something that is irrational or something that is done due to excitement.
One might ask, “Why didn’t the government do it? Why did students do it?” Well yes, perhaps the government should have taken some measures in this regard as well. But in the first months after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government was not a very strong government. Because of the developments due to the Revolution, it may not have been able to implement its duties in this area in a proper fashion. Actually, this idea that sometimes ordinary citizens can enforce a law is one of the principles that is given attention to and recognized in the US itself, in all states and with no exception. It is called “citizen’s arrest.” This means that if you see someone doing something illegal and the police are not around, or even if they are, you can intervene and prevent that crime.
This means a “citizen,” a national of that country, can “arrest” or seize someone with legal authority. Who can they arrest? The perpetrators of the crime. What did the students do? They arrested the American spies in Tehran. They conducted a “citizen’s arrest,” as the Americans would call it. What the students did here was in relation to the US. Now this may not be an issue in other countries. The Americans claim that their embassy is their territory. If that embassy was American territory, then actually US laws were in place there and “citizen’s arrest” took place there. The work of the spies who were carrying out destructive activities against Iranian and international laws under the guise of diplomacy was brought to an end. You must be aware of this fact that in that same year, Dr. Richard Falk – a professor at Princeton University who is still alive to this day – wrote an article covering the concepts I just talked about. In a way, he supported the action of the students, although he also paid the price for doing so and was harassed very much because he had stated this as an American citizen inside the US.
In the end, what the students did was very important from a rational, legal, political point of view. That is why Imam Khomeini (ra) described the capture of the Spy Den as being the "Second Revolution", which was more important than the first Revolution. This is because in the first Revolution the American puppets in Iran were fired, [but] that big idol was still present in Iran. It had an office. It had a Spy Den. The Second Revolution was greater since it destroyed the big idol and expelled it from Iran. In my opinion, if the Den had not been captured, a repetition of the coup d’état that took place on August 19, 1953 was something that would not have been unexpected to happen again. Anyway, the Americans supported the Shah’s regime until the very last moment. After the collapse of the Shah’s regime, they continued to support him 100 percent until the last moment, until the moment of his death. There was a difference of opinion in the US government between the US Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Carter’s national security advisor. Brzezinski believed that the Shah should be supported until the very last moment, while Vance had doubts about this. But in the end, Carter agreed with Brzezinski’s opinion. He always agreed with Brzezinski whenever there was disagreement over a matter. The 4th of November should therefore be commemorated because of the extremely important event that took place on that day.
Dr. Foad Izadi is an Associate professor of American Studies at Tehran Univ. He holds a PhD in Mass Communication from Louisiana State University.
(The views expressed in this article are author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment