Skip to main content

tv   Hostage The Abridgement of International Laws  CSPAN  January 30, 2016 8:17am-8:51am EST

8:17 am
host: you have one of the documents. >> one of the oldest hostages kept a diary during the entire period, and his widow gave it to us. we are privileged to have it. i will read a brief section. december 9, 1980, 402nd day. we are told again there would be no hot water, possibly tomorrow. if i could assure that iran was really hurting, i could do without hot water. he was one of a number of hostages who, when they were there, wished that stronger action had been taken. when they got back, they realized very strict economic sanctions had been placed on iran, no concessions were made to get them back, and that they all came back to life. -- back alive. hostages came to appreciate the approach that was taken.
8:18 am
president carter was very thankful that they all got out alive. >> next, on american history hostage! therica, abridgment of international laws. it examines the hostage crisis and the laws pursing gas pertaining to diplomatic immunity. this program is about half an hour. [speaking foreign language] iran, 1979, demonstrators invaded the american embassy in tehran demanding return of the
8:19 am
shah they took hostages in violation of international law. treaties signed by the united states and iran state that both countries will observe the principle of diplomatic immunity, a principle which protects former representatives and embassy property. all appeals to free the hostages were denied by the government of iran. the refusal constituted an unprecedented breach of the rules of normal diplomatic behavior. societies, nations have always formulated laws to maintain order, to prevent anarchy and chaos. in similar fashion nations have created international laws among them rules providing for safety of diplomatic missions abroad. diplomatic immunity is a widely accepted principle and assures safety for them even when the sending and receiving nations do not enjoy friendly relations.
8:20 am
a violation of american law -- of international law is extremely rare. this hostage-taking with the acquiescence of the iranian government is a situation to be examined for the meaning it has for the rest of the world. from the beginning of the crisis, the united states has reacted with restraint, despite the outrage against its representatives abroad. speaking from the white house, jimmy carter. president carter: the actions of iran have shocked the civilized world. for a government to applaud mob violence and terrorism, for a government actually to support and in effect participate in the taking and holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. this violates not only the most fundamental precepts of international law, but the common ethic -- ethical and
8:21 am
religious heritage of humanity. there is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones kidnapping. there is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones blackmail. there is certainly no religious faith on earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people. about deeply concerned the inhuman and degrading conditions imposed on the hostages. from every corner of the world, nations and people have voiced their strong repulsion -- revulsion and condemnation of iran and have joined us in calling for the release of the hostages. last night, a statement of the support was released and issued by the president of the united nations general assembly, the security council, on behalf of all its members.
8:22 am
we expect a further security council meeting on saturday night, at which more firm and official action may be taken to help in obtaining the release of the american hostages. >> at the security council, the statement of the ambassador, the u.s. delegate to the united nations, was moderate, but firm. >> there is, in the united states, a unity of purpose, a disciplined sensitivity to the needs of peace. a determination to bring out a .ust conclusion also, a determination to do what must be done to protect our fellow citizens and the rule of law. that unity of purpose is shared by all americans. mr. president, the hostages must be freed.
8:23 am
>> from the beginning of debate, there was an impressive display of unanimity among the delegates reflecting opinion throughout the world. the delegate from mauritius. >> flagrant violations of in -- of laws dating from time immemorial cannot, must not, will not be tolerated by the international community. >> while supporting the united states in its demand for release of the hostages, delegates were deeply concerned at the conduct of international affairs, the need to protect diplomatic status. the delegate from the federal republic of germany. >> the inviolability of members of diplomatic mentioned --
8:24 am
missions is indispensable for peaceful communications between nations. this is a long-standing principle, which has stood the test of time and which is respected by all states, regardless of cultural traditions, religion, or ideology. this principle of international law is embodied notably in the vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which iran, too, has ratified. >> the delegate from japan. >> in addition to the humanitarian considerations, the present situation, regardless of the reasons involved, constitutes a deviation from the ofl-established law international law concerning the inviolable safety of diplomatic personnel.
8:25 am
>> the delegate from bolivia spoke for the entire latin american group. >> the latin american group reiterates its firm support for the standards of international law that guarantee the inviolability of diplomatic personnel and premises, as well as respect and protection for diplomatic agents. because his life and safety are greater than that of his fellow human beings, but because his protection of his person is, in a sense, a present was it -- a prerequisite for the to conduct-- international life. my government has already conveyed this to the government in tehran. we are acting on two premises. first of all, because we believe that the respect of international law and, in this particular case, of the vienna
8:26 am
convention is an actual necessity if we want to preserve international order. >> the preservation of international order, a tradition that might be broken. the tradition has its basis in history and in the customary laws of western and islamic peoples. also, specific laws have been agreed upon in treaties signed by nations of the world. louis g. fields, jr., legal advisor to the state department is a lecturer and writer on international law. >> the basic convention that applies in the situation in iran and the takeover of the american embassy and holding of its members of its mission staff hostage is of course the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. it was a convention which was promulgated in 1961 for the convocation of customary
8:27 am
-- codification of customary international law in the field of diplomatic immunity and regulation of diplomatic commerce amongst nations. i think it is important to note the first line of the preamble, which was adopted by the theention itself, says that people, the planners, the developers of this convention recall that people of all nations, from ancient times, have recognized the status of diplomatic agency. principle -- a sentimental principle in international law that has its antecedents back to the first recorded period in civilized history. when one nation would send emissaries to another nation to conduct a diplomatic dialogue, to establish treaties, to regulate commerce, to do a variety of things, these
8:28 am
emissaries were sent from one and were to another protected while under the jurisdiction of the receiving sovereign. this has biblical antecedents. it comes into the great city city states, up through roman law, all through ,he period of recorded history there has been this sanctity, if you will, of the diplomatic premise and the diplomatic mission and its people. articles, iecific would like to refer to three which are primarily involved. of thest is article 22 vienna convention, which holds that diplomatic premises shall be inviolable. let me read specifically from , "thee 22, which states
8:29 am
premises of the mission shall be inviolable. agents of the receiving state may not enter them except with the consent of the head of the mission. the receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its ." nity this means the physical premises in which our mission functions is immune from anyone in the host nation from penetrating that mission. it is not extra tutorial -- extraterritorial. historically, many embassies .ere regarded rather, it is inviolable. persons ination by the host state -- the premises themselves have
8:30 am
,een penetrated by persons perhaps with the consent and elaborate article 22 -- and they have breached article 22. the government of iran under the article had a special duty to prevent this. even if you assume that the students have entered the embassy proper, and taken it over without the consent or sanction of the government, that government owed a special duty to protect the premises and that duty has been neglected and ignored. in terms of the individuals, members of the diplomatic staff, article 29 says the person of a diplomatic agent shall be invaluable, he shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
8:31 am
the receiving state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all steps to prevent any attack upon his person, freedom, or dignity. it is true that the states have quarrels, they may disagree. they may go to war. even in the process, diplomatic unity does not break down. you could have an ambassador who could go out and commit a crime, all that happens then is the receiving state tells the government please remove this man, we cannot happen here. the process -- have him here. even in that case, you cannot say the ambassador has committed a crime therefore his immunity is no longer obtained, that is not for the receiving state to say. the defending state decides or is told by the receiving state, you have to remove this man because he violated, he is
8:32 am
persona non grata. the receiving state cannot take it upon it state to set you committed a crime and therefore immunities you would be otherwise entitled to have lapsed, this cannot happen. it is against the law. >> the laws that protect diplomatic premises and diplomatic personnel are from time to time breached. when breaches occur, they usually occur because of the illegal actions of private individuals which are not sanctioned by the receiving state. where very rare case these breaches of international law occur, either with the state, of the receiving you face a serious challenge to
8:33 am
the structure of international relations. , without thecause universally accepted principle inviolability of diplomatic premises and diplomatic agents, it would be impossible for a country to conduct normal relations with each other, to facilitate intercourse, to promote negotiation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts between them. i would regard any breach of this particular law is a serious challenge to the whole framework of the international society and one i would argue is contrary to the interests of all of us, because our diplomatic premises, our diplomatic agents can be the victim of such outrage. >> iran is an islamic nation. does islamic law cover these
8:34 am
questions of democratic -- diplomatic immunity? >> yes, it it does. just as international law, the principles and practice -- diplomats, which they called him -- called emissaries, are to be received, protected and deliver their message and then they leave. and often they are taken to the border to be assured they are in safety. they are thought of being messengers. whether they deliver a message agreeable or disagreeable is immaterial. if they did violate the law, then they are dismissed, but
8:35 am
they are not to be hurt. >> as the meetings of the security council continued, big power rivalries were put aside and adherence to international law were all-important. the delegates for the ussr -- we are for the strict compliance with the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. this position has been explained repeatedly by the security -- the soviet delegation of the security council. accordingly, the soviet delegation has supported the statement of the president of the security council for the immediate release of a miller -- american personnel detained in iran.
8:36 am
disposition of hours remains one ofprinciple -- this position principleins one of and is immutable. >> i venture to say the following. firstly, the reformation of the principles of the resolution of disputes by peaceful means and refraining from military threat or use of force in settling disputes among nations. second, the principle of noninterference in the domestic affairs of state and the territorial integrity of all nations. third, adherence to international law and the rules that regulate diplomatic immunity.
8:37 am
fourth, a call for the immediate release of hostages on humanitarian and legal grounds. mr. president, iran is a party to the 1961 vienna convention. public meetings on what the un's secretary-general called the most serious threat to peace since the cuban missile crisis, the security council met in a final session. councilident of the from china. it is my understanding the council is ready to proceed to a vote. it is so decided.
8:38 am
i put to a vote the draft resolution contained in the document s-136-777. >> the result of the vote is as follows. the draft resolution receives 15 votes in favor and has been adopted unanimously. i now call upon the secretary-general. >> mr. president, in the past weeks, we have all recognized that we are dealing with a
8:39 am
situation that is as unusual as it is dangerous. we have all recognized that the release of the hostages is of primary and urgent importance. we have also recognized there are many other aspects of this problem which needs to be seriously considered. the resolution, which the council has unanimously adopted , reflects the concern of the counsel for the immediate demand of the situation, as well as for the points of view of the parties concerned. i hope that this unanimous decision of the council will provide the basis for a peaceful solution which is unquestionably in the interest of all concerned.
8:40 am
>> the decision supporting the position of the united states was acknowledged by ambassador mchenry. >> mr. president, the 15 members of the security council and their action today have given unanimous expression once more to their urgent call of the government of iran for the immediate and unconditional release of the american embassy personnel being held hostage in our embassy in tehran. they have called on the government of iran to provide the hostages protection and to allow them to leave the country. it is clear from this vote, and from the debate of the last four days in which representatives from all parts of the world have participated, that the family of nations speaks with one voice in calling for the immediate
8:41 am
release of the hostages and we are deeply appreciative. >> the security council debate would have been of the iraniane if delegation would have taken part. the spirit of the debate was a reaffirmation of faith in international law as essential for conducting foreign affairs. the importance of international law is underscored by authorities in the field. ambassador koh from singapore. >> i would argue international law serves the interest of the small countries even more than it serves the interest of the major countries, and the reason i would argue that is quite
8:42 am
obvious. the major countries can look after their interests, even in the absence of international law, they can rely on their national strength, their economic and military strength. but countries like my own which are small, in political terms do not have very much power can invoke the model and legal force of law to back our claims among others and to resist unreasonable demands. by bigger nations. i would argue that international law serves the interest of the third world even more than the interest of the strong and mighty nations. most of the countries of the third world have signed the charter of the united nations and have been members of the united nations.
8:43 am
agreementsrnational following the same procedure and methods as western countries. it is regarded as a subject of international law. but we all know that international law is in need of effective sanctions. infective -- effective sanctions have not been developed. so, there are some states that are compelled by domestic regions, domestic pressures, not to observe fully the rules of international law. iran is one example. >> once small states, no matter how small, came into being. -- they had all of the rights and duties under international law. here at the united nations, we see this all the time. states with populations,
8:44 am
100,000, in the general assembly, those states have the same voice as countries like china, which has close to a billion people. that basic principle of respect, sovereign quality of the states has benefited very small states. they are able to express their selves and those positions and views have been respected. in that general, basic principle, it has protected them very well. >> in the political arena, areinternational law which enshrined in the united nations, forbidding aggression or intervention in the internal affairs of other countries and joining respect by all nationstates of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
8:45 am
other nationstates. these are three illustrations of international law that protect the interest of the small nations of the third world. to the extent that we are able to buttress these principles of international law, they are a shield that protects us from the unreasonable and often threatening conduct of bigger nations. >> international law exists to protect rich and poor, developing and developed nations. the rules of the fabric of world order. if we did not have international law, no nation could act with certainty. in carrying on affairs outside its borders. larger nations acted to see international law upheld. in a growing interdependent world, smaller nations, not having resources have a greater
8:46 am
stake in international law. the affair in iran will be remembered primarily for the lesson to be learned. that, as a nation with a system of laws maintain order, the world must support an effective legal system or dealing with the conduct of nations. paul berry in washington, d.c. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> this weekend, author and supreme court judge in new york will discuss the life and accomplishments of dorothy ferebee. here is a preview.
8:47 am
11, 1963, president kennedy appeared on national television to ask congress to enact landmark civil rights legislation. this was not the days of the cnn where you have to fill a new cycle for 24 hours. when the president came on tv in 1963 it was important. what he said was as follows -- we are confronted primarily with as the issue, as old scriptures and as clear as the american constitution. it is an american, because his skin is start, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if you cannot send his children to the best schools available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed. who among us would be content
8:48 am
with councils and delay. , the subjecterebee of my biography and the topic of my talk this evening, was an african-american woman born in 1898 in norfolk, virginia. she died in washington, d.c. in 1980. during our lifetime, -- during her lifetime she suffered indignities described by president kennedy appeared but she was never content with councils of patients and delay. and civil rights activist -- physician and civil rights activist, she devoted her life to write it -- writing the wrongs articulated by president kennedy. >> watch the entire program saturday at 11:15 eastern on c-span3's american history tv.
8:49 am
>> des moines, iowa, simulcasting with c-span. >> here in iowa. >> god bless the great state of iowa. >> the republican party of iowa. >> in iowa. >> here in iowa. >> so pleased to do this with wonderful friends in iowa. >> if you had told us we would come in third in iowa we would have given anything. >> it is good to be back in iowa. >> people did not know much about the iowa caucuses. ♪ >> an average caucus? >> it is hard to say, the third one i have been to, they are all different. 18, 19, 20. >> it is good to be back in iowa. >> thank you i want for the great sendoff.
8:50 am
>> they are discerning voters. >> thanks to the people of iowa. >> i want to thank the people of iowa. >> iowa is the first. >> i love i will, if i will never speak to you again. -- i love iowa, if i lose i will never speak you again. >> next on "american history tv," kirsten wood looks at the use of political music during the founding era of the united states. she explains that patriotic music created in this period was used for many purposes, including political manipulation, taunting of adversaries, and enjoyment. performers from southern methodist university's meadows school of the arts provided accompaniment to the talk. the one-hour event was sponsored by the smu center for presidential history.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on