Reza Vaghefi —
Introduction:
The American University of Beirut, Lebanon was built in 19th Century inaugurating in 1864. This magnanimous act was accomplished during the height of Ottoman Empire. At above the main en-trance to the University on Rue Bliss in Beirut it is engraved: Syrian Protestant College, meaning the land was at the time part of Syrian Province in the Ottoman Empire.
The monumental act was followed by the American University of Cairo, Egypt, again part of Ot-toman empire. Roberts College in Istanbul, at heart of Ottoman empire, was the third institution of Higher education sponsored by Presbyterian mission. The same Mission built Alborz College in Tehran, Iran. All these institutions were profoundly affecting all aspects peoples’ life in these coun-tries and throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The awakening movements in the Middle East and North Africa was a testament to the effectiveness of teaching objectives at these institu-tions of higher learning such as freedom and democracy. For instance, Ismail Al Azhari led the In-dependence movement in Sudan from British empire was the first to be noted by the world.
At the International conference in San Francisco in 1945 to establish the United Nations as a stabilizing force in international relations, Middle Eastern Countries, including Iran, were represented by 45 distinguished citizens of the Iran, Egypt, Sudan etc. Nowhere could the impact of these institutions be felt more than the Conference which was creating four major organi-zations.: The United Nations with all its constituent units such as U.N. Security Council, Interna-tional Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. These three institutions have had profound impact on many countries of Middle East and elsewhere. Add to this list the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherland with Charter to resolve problems among member nations. Given this brilliant and lasting contributions to the world, one wonders what has happened to the United States that so many people are suspicious of its activities and are careful when asking for help? Or as General Eisenhower is quoted to have said: “Why these people do not like us?
WW11 and its Aftermath
After WW11 and the creation of international institutions like the United Nations which included in its charter organs that were designed to deal with world-wide injustice or human rights etc., nations who had been harmed by colonial powers like Britain, felt some rejuvenating spirit and began movements that would allow them to seek independence. Indian subcontinent, under Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi and his immediate lieutenants like Jawaher Laal Nehru felt that the time was ripe to claim their freedom from British oppression. Gandhi’s movement which had begun immediately right after WW11 ultimately gave birth to a free India.
The success of Indians did not go unnoticed in Iran. With emergence of a puritan man like Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in the lead, Iranians began to demand their rightful share of the under-ground wealth dominated by British company, Anglo Iranian Oil Company. There was nothing Iranian in that name, it was just the façade. The movement called National Front led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh received its total support from Iranians in a general election where a good number of National Front candidates found their rightful seat in the National Parliament, called Majlis. Dr. Mossadegh was nominated as the Prime Minister. He said that he would accept the honor after the Parliament approved the Nine Articles of the Nationalization law which had been initiated by deputies under the chairmanship of Dr. Mossadegh. This request was immediately ap-proved and all deputies, even those whose loyalty remained in supporting the foreign oil company. With the approval, Parliament expressed its support for Dr. Mossadegh and dispatched its approval to the Shah who appointed Dr. Mossadegh as legally elected Prime Minster of Iran. This was the process that had been established years ago. The Parliament votes for a person who has won the majority support and Shah approves and appoints the person as prime minister. For years Dr. Mossadegh had fought to establish this parliamentary procedure.
The question is what all this has to do with the title of the paper.? The answer is a lot and here is the rest of the paper to explain in detail, as much as possible, why it is important to revive the story of the old wounds as painful as they were and continue to be to this day. Because the following cases have a lot to do with policies that have created a lot of pain, suffering and resentment. These are some case studies that are important to know and have had profoundly negative and destructive impact on the societies where such unlawful acts took place.
Iran: August 1953 Coup d’eta.
The Indian success in achieving independent from a stubborn colonial power did not go unnoticed in Iran and in many ways, time was ripe for serious action. The fundamental ingredients were there and a puritan leader like Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was emerging from the shadow and ready to lead.
The 14 Parliamentary election was underway, and an active enthusiastic group was gathering around Dr. Mossadegh whose charismatic leadership had created hopes and a sense of achieving the unachievable, freedom from a colonial power that had suffocated the Iranians for decades if not centuries. “To millions of his compatriots Mossadegh personified their country more completely than anyone else. Quite simply he was Iran”. Patriot of Persia, Christopher de Bellaigue.
He was the most qualified to lead the nationalization of the most significant resource, oil, that had been exploited by the British for decades with minimum contribution to Iranian economy. The amount of money that the Oil company paid to Iran was a fraction of the Taxes they paid to the Exchequer in the British government, a malignant evil that had penetrated in the Iranian society for decades and prevented any major economic plan, according to A.H Ebtehaj in “Entrepreneurs of Iran 1974, Palo Alto. CA. (by the author)”, that would contribute to a revival of the society. Of all the people that were in the position to help Iran” it was Mossadegh who saw the hidden hand of the British everywhere because that is where it was. The United States allowed itself to become British accomplice and triggerman, naively helped to overthrow a legitimate government which up to that moment Dr. Mossadegh had considered the United States a force for good in the world affairs.
The problem was that the British influence had penetrated Iranian society at all levels of government agencies and major commercial enterprises. The hidden instrument of the influence exercising were Masons whose presence were unknown, but influence was real and effectively protected the British interest.
Generally, in the eyes of public, the main elements to implement the nationalization law were pre-sent. These composed the Shah as head of the State, the government led by Dr. Mossadegh and the religious community whose symbolic presence was filled by Ayatollah Kashani. The perceived tri-umvirate, as powerful as it seemed to public, had limited life because the head of State, the Shah, was not fully behind Dr. Mossadegh’s plan and Ayatollah’s real intent was not in line with Dr. Mossadegh’s as he was pushing to interfere in the affairs of the government directly for his cro-nies. Such religious involvement was not acceptable to a man, Dr. Mossadegh, who had fought all his life to keep state and religion two separate entities. Mossadegh’s profound hatred of the British was not shared by the two other members of the triumvirate.
The British at the United Nations
The British government took the case to the United Nations Security Council where her representa-tive made an insensate argument that did not impress any one and certainly not India or other mem-bers of the Council that thought the issue did not belong there. Throughout the process Dr.Mossadegh wanted a deal that would guarantee Iran’s independence from sleazy British be-cause he knew them so well and had seen how they operated to undermine the government and Iran economic and social development. During his stay in the United States, he provided ample ev-idence between Iran’s struggle and that of colonies in 1776 a struggle to free Iran from the chain of British imperialism just as the Americans had done so to free themselves centuries ago.
In the whole process Dr. Mossadegh had impressed people around President Truman, people like McGhee, Assistant Secretary of the State, who told the British that thy were digging themselves in a hole but the Imperial mindset would not allow the British to understand the depth of hatred that they had accumulated over a long period of time. McGhee was the only one in the Truman administration that appreciated the “strength and validity of the national-ist movement in Iran”. Ibid, page 183. McGhee was soon to be transferred to Turkey as US Am-bassador, one more sleazy British gimmick, to remove the people that do not share your imperial design and thinking.
At home a part of the triumvirate which was critical to achieving Dr. Mossadegh’s objective, the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was wobbling knowing full well what the British had done to his father. Shah remembered the old British hands were available to undo what had been done so far. The old hand was Syed Zia whose Anglophile devotion and identities were as clear as day light and well-known in political circles. Zia’s credentials were directly opposite to the “moral authority wielded by Mossadegh as unparalleled in history of Iran, and one may say the entire Middle East.”
The most interesting part of this damaging story was the British role and how they were able to manipulate the Americans, as they do to this day (U.S. Submarine to Australia). How this manipu-lative strategy worked and to whose benefit is by itself a fascinating story.
Clement Atlee’s Labor government in England had provided some indirect support to the notion of Oil Nationalization. The argument in Tehran was that if it acceptable to nationalize coal and steel etc. in England why not in Iran where there was every legitimate reason to nationalize an industry that had been exploited by a foreign company for its own benefit and at the price of Iranian nation. But the 1952 elections on both side of the Atlantic brought in new faces and philosophies quite contrary to the previous government of Labor in England and Democrat in Washington. Winston Churchill, the symbol of Imperialism and Dwight Eisenhower, a man with a military mindset at the beginning of a Cold War was not a welcome sign for Dr. Mossadegh whose de-meaner and mental framework was obsessed with a puritan adherence to law, local or international, was quite the opposite of what lied ahead. The most intriguing aspect in this process was how the British expressed their view of the oil issue. Their emphasis to the new and naïve administration was that they feared the influence of Communists in Iran and the potential that they may over-whelm the government of Dr. Mossadegh at which time the Soviet Union may take advantage of the conditions and help a communist takeover in Iran. Eisenhower was a “Gloves-off warrior who believed that America was pitted against an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination and that long standing American concept of fair play must be reconsidered.” p.220, Ibid. This seemed to have provided a good moment for a muscular force.
The British had a mischievous strategy of emphasizing the threat of communist in this process and that is what triggered the American reaction and set in motion to overthrow of a legitimate govern-ment the likes of which did not exist in the entire Middle East and has never existed since. The old “Fox” and the new naïve administration were bad omen for government of Dr. Mossadegh. British were downplaying Britain oil interest and dwelling on the dangers of communism. As a matter of fact some of the apparently communist organizations were indeed created by the British spies to be used as weapons against Mossadegh’s government. The author of this paper was a part of the nationalist youth movement and witnessed how the British were playing the communist card. Mos-sadegh called them TudehNafti meaning the ones created by the oil company early on to play the communist role.
The tragedy was that not even for moment Eisenhower thought that what he was about to do would restructure entire movement that may have long run implications for the region. The Model government that Mossadegh had established, the rule of law, justice and respect for established tradition was to be supplanted by military where the basic of human rights and law and order were to be thrown out of the window and replaced by people that had no respect for any of those precious phenomena that had been tested and applied in Iran such as free election, and separation of powers, executive, judiciary and legislative that had provided the core of Mossadegh’s government. A great oppor-tunity, in that part of the world was thrown to the fire and replaced by ruthless military.
The Coup d’eta of 1953 took sometimes to take place. The British had pronounced their opposition to nationalization of oil and used every trick and dirty instrument in their scheme to neutralize the movement which ultimately took place in 1953. The effect of such a dramatic unlawful act lasted for a long time and the old wounds never healed but kept watching for the moment to arrive and ultimately ended up in the Islamic revolution of 1979.
“Few foreign interventions in the Middle East have been as ignoble as the Coup of 1953 and few Middle Eastern leaders have less deserved our hostility than Mohammad Mossadegh. His under-standing of independence and democracy was the result of long immersion in the ideas of the west and even more profound identification with his own society and people. Nationalization had been a force for decades but he was the first to try to build a modern Middle Eastern state on the basis of collective and individual liberty” de Bellaigue, p.273. The freedom of a person is meaningless if his/her government makes policy based on external influences. This was Mossadegh’s fundamental thinking all along. Primacy of law and national interest based on the rule of law preceded every-thing else. These phenomena were not compatible with what had been an established norm be-tween outsider’s interest and the local authority’s willingness to challenge that modus operandi.
As a final word for the reader, and possibly policy makers in high places, it is not farfetched to say that had there been some deep thinking with good intentions, Iran history might have been quite different from what we see.
To-day. Mossadegh’s Iran may indeed have been a positive force for many in the region and in-stead of constant conflicts there could have been peaceful relationships with results that would have produced a healthy standard of living instead of poverty, a strong middle class instead of power and wealth highly concentrated which by itself generates gloom and misery. Some of these dreams materialized years later though short lived because the institutions that would have strengthened sustainability did not exist and primacy of law, a darling of Mossadegh, did not take roots to pro-vide life for the changes that rank, and file were pursuing. There is ample evidence that in august 1953 Iran was not going to communist, it only existed in the mind of those in power, in the West, who did not wish Iran to actualize its dream but remain a reliable client and dependent for host of products which had nothing to do with basic standard of living of its population.
Chile
On the morning of October 22, 1970, …General Rene Schneider, the Head of Chile’s armed forces had been shot by a commando on the street of Santiago, Chile. He was not expected to survive ((NYTimes December 17, 2016). In that country Salvador Allende who run on a program of economic development and justice for the people was a great success. His election was not a welcome news in Washington and President Richard Nixon. Nixon was not satisfied with the results. And So they set up the Coup and General Pinochet took over in Chile and a massive reign of terror be-gan to kidnap, execute, torture, and eliminate thousands of people. Years later Pinochet was detained in London Airport, England for massive violation of human rights. “While Washington encouraged democracy in Western Europe as an ideological counterweight to the Soviet Union it suppressed its spread in much of the world. It backed or installed
Dictators, encouraged violent repression of the left-wing elements, and sponsored anti-democratic armed groups “by Thomas Carothers NYT, Nov.17, 2021,p.A.11. Ret. General Pinochet was ultimately released due to old age and health, but the world saw firsthand a brutal bloody hand under whose rule thousands of people of Chile lost their life and no one heard about them.
This was done despite pronounced statements which advocated democracy as the fundamental goal of the American government in its outlook for the world.
As a matter of fact, the Coup d eta in Iran seemed to have provided a playbook for implementation in other nations. This was followed in Indonesia where Sukarnou, the leader of freedom movement, was overthrown by a military man named General Suharto who followed the recipe. Torture, execution and disappearance of thousands.
Guatemala:
The implementation of the playbook did not stop in Indonesia. Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown to be replace by a military man Col. Carlos Castillo Armas to follow the footsteps of others before him to suppress the peoples’ wishes in order to protect American business profits The Guatemalan leader had forced the United
Fruit Company to rescind a portion of the land under its control so that the Guatemala farmers could cultivate and enjoy a limited living income. The elected Iranian and Guatemala leaders had challenged the power or large corporations in their respective countries. In a short period “Guatemala fell into a maelstrom of guerrilla war and state terror in which thousands of people died”. NYT Nov.30, 2003, p. wk,3 The reign of terror was initiated under the presumed thinking that communism was taking a foothold, a phenomena that was highly exaggerated a thoughtless act on part of the American leaders led to destroying of a nascent democratic movement that had created serious hopes in a nation deprived of democratic values for a long time.
Conclusion:
After all the damages done in different parts of the world, one would think that regime change and imposition of some western values, sometime totally alien to local cultures, and some other times simply destroying what had been built under the guise of fighting communism. The American society may have learned to remind the decision makers that they should look at global issues with a deep sense of curiosity and understanding of the past mistakes if there is any inclination to establish open and transparent communication for the betterment of mankind. We should never forget the Iraqi debacle created on the basis false intelligence to fit an aggressive plan. Actions of the United States have world-wide implications and must be carefully analyzed and discussed before events get out of hand and other factors be-come the modus operandi. Killing of innocent people, then blaming intelligence Is the cause of what General Eisenhower asked: why people do not like us’. “The valor of the Marine, the terror of Afghans, the disastrous denouncement of the war. How can anyone read this story and not be moved? The human anguish and the unimaginable waste of these international conflicts are powerfull lessons that never seemed to be learned by those who cause them” Keith W. Hall, NYT,9-10-2021. p. A 20.