From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 17:35:26 MST
From: "MaxPlumm" <MaxPlumm@aol.com>
X-Mailer: YaBB
(Let me apologize in advance if this is a double post-Max)
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
> I originally wrote:
>
> > I can just as easily say that the US should be blamed more for NOT
> > maintaining the Shah's Peacock Throne in 1979. Especially when one
> > considers that the abdication of the Shah led to the ceasing of Iran
> > "as a base for force projection close to the Soviet border". With no
> > more US presence in Iran, this gave the Soviets a free hand in the
> > region and allowed them to proceed with their invasion of Afghanistan
> > in December 1979. This led to the US and Chinese needing to support
> > the Mujahadeen to expel the Soviets, which in turn led to the rise of
> > Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. So, to use your logic, the rise of
> > the terrorism that now threatens US and international security can be
> > directly traced to our lack of support of a regime that opposed
> > fundamentalist Islamic groups.
>
> To which Sean Kenny responded:
>
> "Iran, 1953: When the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh
> nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, the resulting sanctions on
> the country – led by Great Britain and the United States –
> resulted in
> economic hardship and political unrest. Fearing that such instability
> could result in a communist takeover and concerned about the precedent
> of nationalization on American oil companies elsewhere in the Middle
> East, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency organized a military
> coup in 1953, ousting the elected prime minister. The United States
> returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for
> more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were
> tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and
> trained by the United States. The repression was largely successful in
> wiping out the democratic opposition. The SAVAK was less successful in
> infiltrating religious institutions, however, so when the revolution
> finally took place, toppling the Shah in 1979, the formerly secular Iran
> came under the leadership of virulently reactionary and anti-American
> Islamists. The result of the Islamic revolution was not only the end of
> one of America’s strongest economic and strategic relationships in
> the
> Middle East, but also the hostage crisis of 1979-81, Iranian support for
> anti-American terrorist groups, and a series of armed engagements in the
> Persian Gulf during the 1980s. Had the United States not overthrown
> Iran’s constitutional government in 1953 and replaced it with the
> dictatorial Shah, there would not have been the Islamic Revolution and
> its bloody aftermath."
>
> I am appreciative of your response, Sean, but I disagree completely
> with it.
To which Samantha responded:
"According to people I know who escaped from Iran, it is quite
accurate."
With all due respect, all of the people I've met from the former South Vietnam
describe the Communist regime as a horrible, nightmarish one and applaud our
efforts in Indochina, something you seem unwilling to accept. Therefore, I
suggest that we refrain from using personal acquaintences from a given country
as experts in the future.
> If we wish to continue the rotating game of
> assigning blame, then I could then say this.
"Do you think that is all or even primarily what this is?"
Yes, in terms of the way the dialogue was progressing, I do. I believe that
Mez, Sean, and I all made points in our posts worth elaborating on, something
I did with Mez. But the discourse as presented in this thread originally
lacked any historical perspective and was more directed toward assigning blame
and criticism.
"To me it looks more like attempting to honestly understand what
happened. It may not be the whole story but it is one important
slice of the story."
As I pointed out in my subsequent reply, and you seem to ignore, I don't
feel that Sean's description as presented helped anyone honestly understand
what happened. In his post, he does not address the Soviet Union's actions
in Iran, the region, or the world once when describing the period of the
Shah's rule. You cannot seriously consider US foreign policy abroad without
doing so. He merely illustrates ONLY the negatives of the Pahlavi regime,
which serves only to give the reader a negative opinion of the United States
efforts abroad with none of the perspective required to make an informed
judgment. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's flaws are a part of the story, but they are
nowhere near the most important part of the story.
"If it is excluded out of discomfort or disagreement with other takes then
our understanding is poorer and we are less likely to reach conclusions and
take actions
that are actually helpful toward our deepest goals."
Again, considering that not only did I point out the Shah's repression in my
rebuttal post, but also illustrated examples by South Korea's Syngman Rhee
and other US proxies, I do not see where your point about it being excluded
comes in. I would argue then that Sean is more guilty of this, since he at no
point illustrates the positive aspects of the Shah's regime. If one is truly
interested in deeper understanding of an issue, then one should welcome the
study of both the good and bad of any given issue. Failing to do so in my
mind merely allows one to remain stuck in the mold of whatever ideology they
subscribe to.
> Had not Islamic fanatics of
> the terrorist organization Fedaiyan-e Islam (Devotees of Islam)
> assassinated then Iranian Prime Minister Ali Razmara in 1951, Mohammed
> Mossadegh would never have been appointed Prime Minister in Iran (by the
> Shah, who you heavily criticize, a point I will address shortly).
> Razmara staunchly opposed nationalization of the oil companies on the
> grounds that Iran should abide by its international agreements and
> because he felt they could not run the oil fields alone.
>
"Does this though deny the other side or add aspects and
dimensions to the unfolding story?"
Yes, I believe it does, given that it illustrates that not all Iranian
political thought was united on the course of action subsequently taken by
Mossadegh. Moreover, it also illustrates the role Islamic fundamentalists were
playing in the destabilization of the Iranian domestic political situation
some thirty years before the Iranian revolution.
> A continued Razmara administration then would not have nationalized
> the oil fields, the sanctions you speak of would never have occurred,
> and a pro-western regime endorsed by the Western powers would have been
> continually aided and supported Iran for the foreseeable future. Therefore,
> not only are the Islamic fundamentalists to blame for the chaos in Iran in
> 1978-79, they are also to blame for the difficulties which occurred in the
> 1950's.
>
"This seems rather silly doesn't it? You are claiming one
assassination is responsible for everything?"
No more so than Sean is claiming the US instigated coup against the Mossadegh
regime subsequently prevented Iran from achieving democracy and that the US is
therefore responsible for everything which subsequently happened.
> Let me say now that I am partly to blame for this game of "Who did
> what" oneupsmanship. In responding to Mez originally, as is seen above, I
> responded more forcefully than perhaps what was appropriate. I took strong
> issue with his apparent claims that US foreign policy during the Cold War
> was somehow intentionally anti-democracy. In my subsequent discussions with
> Mez we were able to clarify and elaborate on our positions. Though I did
> not agree completely with him, I found him to be a fair, thoughtful, and
> intelligent poster. But, given my initial reaction, I am not surprised that
> Sean replied in the manner in which he did.
"It is well known that we have often acted intentionally anti-democracy in
several countries in the world. It is pointless and unhelpful to deny this."
I find your characterization of US decisions completely unfair. As I pointed
out at length to Mez, and as Lee Corbin eloquently stated recently, the choice
abroad for the United States during the Cold War era was not one between
democracy and authoritarianism. It was a choice between authoritarianism
and far worse. Democracies did not just spontaneously appear and thrive
during the world of the 1950s and 1960s. To illustrate what I mean, all one
need do is study the histories of the African nations Ghana, the Gambia,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo, Libya, the Central
African Republic, and Uganda, (among many others) to see examples of where
democracy was hoist upon a country and it was swallowed up by military coup
d'etat. Most of these nations were outside the interest/touch of Cold War
geopolitics. Democracy was a process that evolved and took several centuries
to take hold in the West. To expect it to magically take hold and thrive
overnight in nations with dissimilar political traditions is folly. Is it
not more logical to subscribe to Lee Corbin's excellent point that these
nations in many cases are not the ideal hosts for overnight democracy? Or
shall people instead cling to the nonsensical argument that the US is at
fault for democracy failing to be spread abroad? The United States has done
more to further the spread of democracy and freedom than any other nation
in the world. To attempt to deny this fact is pointless, unhelpful, and
intellectually dishonest.
> Having addressed the hyperbole on both sides, I would like now
> to address my main concern with Sean's post. As I commented to Mez, I
> cannot abide judgments passed on US foreign policy that make it appear
> these decisions were being made in a vacuum. To "describe" the US-Iranian
> relationship during the Cold War without once mentioning the Soviet Union,
> as Sean does, is to simply ignore reality.
"Do you then believe the Cold War justifies real terrorism
against societies and governments around the world? That the
end, slowing, halting and rolling back Soviet expansion,
justified any and all means? If so, then why would you have
trouble admitting just how vile some of the means were?"
Again, at one point do I not fully acknowledge and catalog the sometimes
unfortunate means that were required to combat Soviet expansionism? But I will
not subscribe, as you seem to be doing, that there existed an option for the
United States that involved sitting back and doing nothing that somehow would
have delivered us a world which was more pro-freedom and democratic.
>I find it even more unfortunate that he did not in his rebuttal address my
>point, which was that the abdication of the Shah played a direct role in
>the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. It is simply not realistic to
>suggest otherwise. The transformation of Iran from a pro-western nation
>with US bases to a nation completely hostile to it had a profound impact on
>Soviet thinking. All one need do is look at a map of the region.
>
"I think your point is rather minor in this fuller context presented, don't
you?"
How is my point, that involved a lessening in the quality of life for both
the Iranian and Afghani people, not to mention the Soviet troops fighting
to conquer Afghanistan, "rather minor" and somehow not a "fuller context"
than that of a limited description of the domestic situation in Iran? I must
honestly admit that I believe you are the one guilty of not acknowledging the
"fuller context" in this instance.
> Another serious issue I have with Sean's post is his characterization of
> the regime of the Shah of Iran. In his post Sean succinctly points out
> the methods of repression used by the Shah, methods which would lead to
> the imprisonment (and in many cases deaths) of thousands of Iranians
> during his 25 year regime. This was the dark side of the Pahlavi regime,
> and something that should be rightfully pointed out.
"Good."
> However, Sean in no
> way gives any sort of historical context to his analysis. What third
> world regime of this era did not utilize these tactics?
"But how many of them were proped up so strongly by the US?"
To answer your question directly, Samantha, the answer is not the majority
of them. Again, Samantha, whether you wish to admit it or not, the question
for the US was one of choosing between authoritarianism and something worse,
not between democracy and authoritarianism. Let us now take the example of
South Korea. In 1950, the United States had the option of choosing between
Syngman Rhee, an authoritarian thug, or allowing that nation to fall into
the totalitarian hands of the Communist Kim Il Sung. The United States
chose to support the authoritarian Rhee. Today, the people of South Korea
enjoy a quality of life better than most nations of the world, including
their neighbors to the North, who are starving and remain backward and as
anti-extropian as they come. Now, are you seriously going to suggest that
because the United States supported an antidemocratic regime in South Korea,
that the subsequent gains made by the people there are somehow tainted?
>Anwar Sadat, a man whose courage to deal with the Israelis is something I
>greatly admire, was certainly guilty of this kind of repression. Syngman
>Rhee executed 2000 suspected Communists in South Korea without trial in the
>early 1950's. Certainly no regime in the Communist camp could plead innocent
>to this barbarism. In illustrating that other regimes operated in the same
>way, I do not seek to excuse or justify the Shah's repression. I merely
>mean to make clear that to pretend or ignore that others didn't is at best
>ridiculous.
"How is this even relevant? That other monsters existed did not
make the Shah, who we supported, any less monstrous."
It is relevant because Sean's characterization of the Shah was one that
suggested he did nothing positive for the people of Iran. More importantly,
it suggests in his view that no regime that engaged in that sort of behavior
could be supported by the United States. Ninety percent of the regimes in
the world during this era actively participated in repression of dissent, so
it would've been impossible for the United States to contain communism, let
alone conduct any sort of foreign policy if this standard was used as the
basis for interaction with other nations. To hold the regimes of this era to
the standard of the contemporary United States is absurd, and illustrates a
profound lack of understanding for 20th century world affairs.
> To allow unfettered dissent in such
> a time was to show weakness and vulnerability and sow the seeds of one's
> own demise, as the Shah would learn a quarter century later. This was
> the unfortunate reality of this era.
"Would you support the US deciding this is the reality and using
such means on its own citizens? The legal instruments that
would eventually allow it are being forged even as we discuss
this."
I initially thought I would not address a point as hyperbolic as this,
but I feel it must be addressed. It is obvious that you are not a fan of
the current US administration, but I think you do the quality of debate a
great disservice when you recycle old Vietnam era arguments that the United
States is in the process of becoming a garrison state. The United States
is doing less to silence dissenting voices in times of war than it ever
has before. During World War I, German-Americans were persecuted, and the
socialist candidate for president, Eugene Debs, was thrown in prison for
making anti-war statements. 120,000 Japanese nationals were imprisoned in the
"internment" camps of World War II. 6000 draft resisters were prosecuted in
the US during that same war. Democracy has grown stronger, not weaker in this
country since then. The government chose not to prosecute for treason any of
those US citizens who had offered "aid and comfort" in North Vietnam, a direct
contrast to each of our prior military engagements. If you wish to debate the
merit of our past decisions abroad, fine, but let us not become entangled in
fanciful discussions on the impending doom of democracy in the United States.
> The majority of nations in the
> world were not democracies during the 20th Century. A large portion of
> the blame for this can be placed on the Soviet Union, which attempted to
> foster a climate of the exact opposite system of government throughout
> the globe. To somehow blame repression, or worse a lack of democracy, on
> the United States is absurd, as it somehow suggests that the world would
> have had more democracies had the US chosen a policy of inaction and
> less influence.
>
"When we support and prop up governments making them much less
likely to be subject to change by their people, we act
anti-democractically and act to repress those who would change
their country toward greater democracy."
Your argument does not stand up to historical scrutiny. South Korea, Greece,
and the Philippines, for example, all had regimes supported for a decade or
more by the United States that were not democratic, and yet each country
managed to achieve democracy through their own internal efforts. This was not
the case anywhere in the Communist world during the ascendancy of the Soviet
Union. Had we not "propped up" the authoritarian regime of Syngman Rhee in
South Korea, then there would be no democracy in that nation today. You seem
to be suggesting that the United States was the main culprit in preventing
democracy abroad, when it is readily apparent that it was the most positive
force for its spread, directly or indirectly, that the world has ever seen.
"Influcence and action
that increases what we do not want and gets little of what we do
want is not very wise action or influence. Historically we must
understand what we actually did and its unintended consequences."
These actions achieved what we did want, the containment and eventual end
of expansionist Communism. In many cases, it provided the opportunity for
democracy to thrive where it would not have otherwise. (South Korea, Taiwan,
etc.) In simply focusing upon the failings of the regimes the US supported,
you fail to paint a clear picture of what positives were achieved, both abroad
an in terms of the quality of life for the peoples of the nations in question.
> He was also determined that his people become a literate one. The
> literary rate in Iran in 1977 was 85%. Today, it is only 72%, with Iraq at
> 58% and Egypt at 51%. Primary school attendance rose from 270,000 in 1960
> to over 10 million in 1977.
"The Shah did some great things, sure. So did the Soviet Union. But that
doesn't mean we did not also err greatly in our
support for him when we did not do more to stop his very
negative and anti-democratic aspects."
And allowing him to fall has somehow bettered the lives of the Iranian
people? I dare say the fall of the Soviet Union has bettered the lives of
Eastern Europeans among others, even though you suggest that regime "also
did great things." This has simply not been the case in Iran. All of the
achievements which I mentioned regarding the Shah's have seen reversals in
present day Iran. He had many faults, as I have readily acknowledged. But he
also brought a better quality of life to his people than that enjoyed by most
of the people in the Middle East even today.
Regards,
Max Plumm
"The final verdict of history is not rendered quickly. It takes not just years
but decades to be handed down. Few leaders live to hear the verdict."
-Richard
Nixon
---- This message was posted by MaxPlumm to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=54834>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 17:37:52 MST