THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1980. Backing the U.S. on hostages

Press, 15 April 1980, Page 22

THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1980. Backing the U.S. on hostages

“Many Americans will judge the true worth of our alliance over the next few weeks by the manner in which we in Europe respond,” Dr. David Owen, the former British Foreign Secretary, has written about the American request for economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran. Undoubtedly one of the prime considerations of all allies of the United States, including New Zealand, will be the reaction of the American public to the support or lack of support forthcoming elsewhere. This applies as much to sanctions against the Soviet Union over the invasion of Afghanistan as it does to the moves against Iran. The dilemma in which many of America’s friends find themselves is that they feel they are adopting measures that they do not believe will work but which they feel they cannot reject because of the effect on American public opinion.

The American argument over both Iran and the Soviet Union is based on solidarity: what were the lessons of the First and Second World Wars? Was one lesson not that countries have to show solidarity if they are going to stand up to aggression or to outrageous behaviour? The solidarity being asked for in the Iranian hostage battle is economic and diplomatic and, in the case of the Olympic boycott, it is to attach concerted political importance to sport. If such measures cannot be used to bring erring members of the international community into line, have countries anything left other than force by which to resist assaults on their citizens or allies? Not the least consideration for many countries will be the attitude of the United States towards the United Nations if the solidarity that is wanted is not forthcoming.

More immediate concerns will be about the attitude of the United States towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and towards other security treaties such as A.N.Z.U.S. Dr Owen argued in his article in the “Sunday Times,” London, that the European Community should give the United States unstinting support. He foresaw the next step if it did not do so and said that the European support should be conditional on a “clear United States assurance that there will be no use of military force.”

It is difficult to believe that sanctions against Iran will bring about the release of the Americans held by the students at the American Embassy. President Carter believes that as soon as the Iranian Government refused to take charge of the hostages from the students it could be held to be the responsible party. It may be held responsible for obviously being negligent in asserting its authority and for ignoring diplomatic convention; but this is of little avail when the influence of Ayatollah Khomeiny was clear in the decision not to take official charge of the hostages. The idea of sanctions themselves seems to rely on an assumption that a rational person or group is in charge of a country, can see how the sanctions will hurt the economy, and would reasonably want to bring about their removal.

The rationality of events in Iran is not at all evident, and the view that Iran has an effective or responsible Government can be dismissed. Iran is led by an old, sick man who has great support among the people and has an ability to arouse political fervour. The

President, Mr. Bani-Sadr, might outmanoeuvre Ayatollah Khomeiny one day but he has not yetdone so. Trade and diplomatic sanctions are ? not the stuff with which to change the mind of Ayatollah Khomeiny. The United States is - right in arguing that' solidarity is needed to make the sanctions work. Few businesses around the world, having.worked to get a contract in Iran or the Soviet Union will bow out of the scene when - a firm in another country—a country less scrupulous than their own—will be ready to clinch the deal-in their stead. For the want of solidarity the sanctions will almost certainly fail. The very fact that Americans will not be going to the Olympics may influence a great many athletes and sports, administrators. Some solidarity might be achieved, not solely because of agreement with American attitudes' to the invasion of Afghanistan, but--because, the Olympics cannot be the same without American participation.;^A great many Governments, which leave it-to their national Olympic- committees to decide on participation or a /boycott, will, be relieved if that thought influences opinion in favour of a boycott of the Moscow Games. It is . not-the most respectable of reasons for.staying away from the Olympics, but it may serve the same purpose if athletic organisations fail to observe the political significance of bolstering the Moscow Games.

Trade is not the worst dilemma which faces the Western world over Iran and, because of Iran’s command of oil supplies, it is not one that will change Iranian policy or- action. The country is in a sad and even a sick disarray of which the appalling behaviour in holding the hostages is typical. The imposition of sanctions seems more likely to drive the country into isolation and might compound disorder. It was disorder which helped to bring about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. No-one wants to give the Soviet Union the excuse to invade another of its neighbours, yet it is possible that . Soviet intervention might be the outcome of present American policy.

The United States wants to get its hostages out alive. That is riot an American problem alone. Diplomats are vulnerable everywhere and, if what happened in Teheran became a pattern, the civilised means of formal'communication among countries would-be threatened. Being seized as a hostage is not an acceptable occupational hazard for a diplomat but the strains and misunderstandings which* can occur without continued coriimunication can lead to dangers for whole nations. The holding of the hostages is a world problem, not just an American problem.

Dr Owen is right in arguing that support should be given to the Americans. Whether it has to be on American terms may be another matter. Initiatives taken by others, short of a trade boycott, in support of the United States may be as effective in persuading Americans that they have friends and in securing the release of the hostages. European and other Governments may not want to inflict on themselves the results of a trade boycott: they may, however, be induced to come up with other ways’ in which to persuade the Iranian leadership to come to its senses. Insistent diplomatic effort may still be one of the methods of getting results in Teheran.