Commentary on Iran

updated 5th April,2008

Undemocratic Elections in Iran:
It is interesting to compare the following two types of parliamentary elections (A & B) in Iran:

Type A- The eighth parliamentary election since 1979 revolution held in March 2008 with 43 million eligible voters, 290 seats from 30 provinces (1).

According to BBC 15-17 March 2008 (1):

• Many candidates opposed to Mr Ahmadinejad were barred from standing.
• About 40% of those who applied to stand were disqualified by the Guardian Council.
• The reformists seem to have given up the fight after many of their candidates were disqualified on the grounds of alleged lack of loyalty to Islamic values, says our correspondent.
• They made up the bulk of about 1700 candidates barred from running by Iran's Guardian Council - an un-elected body of clerics and jurists that vets election candidates. The Guardian Council has denied bias.
• It all looks like good news for the president, bad news for Western governments hoping for the moderates to temper those aggressive policies.

Type B- The parliamentary elections after the US/CIA & British Intelligence coup of 1953, which ousted the nationalist Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalised the oil industry (2,3), and installed Shah in power.

• I went to vote in the first a so-called democratic election. The vote paper was pulled out of the box using a pre-installed wire, checked and found that I had voted for pro-Mosaddegh candidates (4). I was grabbed by two policemen and dragged into a room and scourged me using their leather belts.
• All candidates opposed to Shah were barred from standing. Many of the supporters of Dr. Mosaddegh had given up the fight after many of their candidates were disqualified on the grounds of lack of loyalty to the new so-called ‘democratic’ system, ruled by the Shah.
• Western countries supported and praised the new so-called ‘democratic’ system under the ‘rule’ of His Majesty the king of Iran.
• An oil Agreement (concession) was delivered to and approved by the new Parliament by which a Consortium of oil companies (40% Americans, 40% British, 14% Dutch and 6% French) managed the oil industry.
• The Shah controlled all subsequent elections, until the 1979 revolution. The oil companies successfully operated, in one form or other, and benefited from the vast oil reserves (5) of Iran for the following 26 years.
• During the 26 year period the nationalists were not allowed to hold public rallies. Their newspapers were closed down, their leaders imprisoned, tortured and/or exiled.

Comparing the above-mentioned two types of elections, which one would you consider less undemocratic? Which one was less unfair to the Iranians?

Being a Humanist, I have no sympathy for any undemocratic government. Nevertheless, I believe the recent election (type ‘A’) is, relatively speaking, less undemocratic, less unjust and less unfair to the Iranian people than the undemocratic type ‘B’ elections, which were imposed by foreign powers to gain and maintain their own interests. I would love to see more democratic elections, by people for people in all countries.

The attitude of some US Congress Representatives towards regime change in Iran seems to have changed recently (6). However, they do not seem to have the support of majority. A listing of regime changes or attempts to regime changes by the US governments in other countries are given in the January 27, 2003 edition of The Christian Science Monitor (7) as follows:

1953: Iran, 1954: Guatemala, 1960: Congo, 1961: Cuba, 1965: Dominican Republic, 1973: Chile, 1983: Grenada, 1986: Philippines, 1986: Libya, 1989: Panama, 1992: Somalia, 1994: Haiti, 1999: Yugoslavia, 2001: Afghanistan (6).
We can add to this list: March 2003: Iraq

Do not make mistake. I am not anti-American. I am anti-any injustice, any powerful government that misuses its powers against weak nations, in favour of their own national interest.

Some individual governments seem to be satisfied with the reasoning or justification that their actions are fair because they act ‘in the interest of their nations’. This, in my opinion is entirely unjustified from humanity point of view. The following comparison illustrates the point: Imagine 192 families in a village, some poor some rich some powerful and some powerless. Then imagine a head of a powerful family misusing his power and cheating the weaker families and stealing some of their already low income. Is that person justified in saying that he is fair because he is acting in the interest of his family? That is what some powerful governments are doing to the powerless states in the 192 member states of the UN, with the excuse of acting ‘in the interest of their nations’!

I believe that one of the objectives of all UNAs should be to achieve a much more effective UN, in which the international rules are obeyed and Human Rights are honoured by all the member states, whether they are powerful or not. I wish that one day we'll have an international rule, prohibiting any member state from trying to change the regime of other states by covert operations (as CIA and MI5 have been doing) or by wars. Change of regime should be very rare and if needed it should be contemplated only by a good majority votes of (currently) Security Council, not merely by a couple of powerful states aided by a few well controlled weak ones (as in Iraq). Hopefully, one day the UN will be strong enough to make the individual states (including the powerful ones) abide by the international laws, without resorting to a war.
I am confident that as time goes on more democracy, more justice and more rule of law will prevail, not only within each country but also in the international community. Although the progress curve is not steadily growing and it has periods of ups and downs, but the overall trend will grow, if imperceptibly, upwards. I only wish there would be fewer downward episodes and more upward periods, and the overall trend would improve perceptibly much faster.
by
Dabir Tehrani/ 26 March 2008

Cont’d.

References & Notes:

1. BBC reported in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7297923.stm 15-17 March 2008
2. Iran was prepared to compensate the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company for having nationalised it. The UK government took the case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, who voted for Iran and against UK.
3. Soon after Eisenhower approved the coup, the CIA sent one of its most resourceful agents, Kermit Roosevelt, to Iran to carry it out. See the book ‘All the Shah’s Men’ by Stephen Kinzer, pages 114-115. And for the details of the nationalisation of the oil industry and the coup process.
4. The first parliamentary election after the coup was organised in hurry, so that no time would be wasted in passing the Oil Agreement. Thus there were still some pro-Mosaddegh candidates, who had not been barred from standing. Thereafter, the Shah exerted more strict control on selection of the eligible candidates.
5. Iran is second in the world, after Saudi Arabia, in oil reserves and second after Russia in gas reserves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/res.html
6. A Bill was proposed to 110th US CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. R. 770 on January 31, 2007 In The House Of Representatives “To prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization”. However, I could not find any indication that the Bill was passed. Nor did I find anything in prohibition of using funds to carry out regime change in other countries.
7. Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. January 27, 2003 http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p01s03-usmi.html

PRESS RELEASE:
DATE: 3 February, 2008-
EMBARGO: IMMEDIATE

IRANIAN INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS VISIT EDINBURGH AND DECLARE
OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS

For their first visit to the UK the President of the United Nations
Association (UNA) of Iran, Yadollah Mohammadi; together with Founder
Members and international lawyers, Hossein Ahmadyadih and Mahmood
Tavana, came to Scotland at the invitation of Edinburgh UNSA.

Whilst in the Scottish Capital they declared their adamant opposition
to nuclear weapons.

"Yearly Iran calls for the UN to negotiate a nuclear-weapons-free
Middle East", Yadollah Mohammadi insisted.

The visit initiated the planning of two collaborative programmes
between the Iran and Edinburgh branches of the UNA. One will be an
exchange Programme for school students. The Exchange follows on from
work by UNA Iran which has helped over 65, 000 children learn about
the work of the UN. Similarly, in Edinburgh, school children have
participated in Model United Nations General Assemblies (MUNGAs)

Plans are also being developed for a One day Conference for civil
society in Iehran based on the findings of collaborative research on
nuclear disarmament. "We need to move quickly ^ before it is too
late ^ to demilitarise the Middle East" said the President of UNA
Iran.

Lord David Hannay, the Chair of the United Nations Association in the
UK said, "It was good to be able to sit down with our visitors from
UNA-IRAN and to discuss the whole range of issues between Iran and
the UN in a spirit of openness and co-operation".

For further details:
Dr. Alec Gaines
UNA Edinburgh
a.f.gaines@strath.ac.uk