ABOUT OIL AND TROUBLED WATERS

In December 1979, there was an advertisement by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. for Trainee Journalists. The application was to be accompanied by a 1000–1500-word essay on a current subject. Iran was transitioning then from a monarchy to an Islamist dictatorship. I picked that as the topic for my essay, which is reproduced here. I got selected to be trained as a Sub-Editor, but my parents quashed the idea!

ABOUT OIL AND TROUBLED WATERS

Please to remember

The Fifth of November

Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot…

Who does not know about the plot hatched by the immortal Guy Fawkes? Only this time it happened on the Fourth – sans the gunpowder – but equally startling all the same. The “Guy” was, of course, the venerable Ayatollah Khomeini, who lent great support to the trapping of the diplomats in the US Embassy at Teheran. There were more than 60 people there. Five non-Americans had since been released, as also five white women and eight black men. The students who held the Embassy hung on to the 49 others, threatening to put them on trial as spies and to execute them if the Shah was not extradited.

The Shah was then in the most unenviable of circumstances in New York’s Cornell Medical Center, suffering from multiple medical complaints, including cancer. He handed over his mantle to Shapour Bakhtiar on December 30, 1978, and left for Mexico. That was only the beginning. Mr. Bakhtiar was ousted from power in February 1979, and the Mehdi Bazargan government took over the reins. Dr. Mehdi Bazargan was a slightly left-of-centre intellectual, who supported the Khomeini movement to topple the Shah. He did not, however, reckon with the bloodbath that followed – 650 men (an official count) had been tried in kangaroo courts and executed. He neither foresaw the Kurds’ agitation for autonomy nor the pro-Islamic fervour sweeping Iran. Khomeini was vested with “Supreme Powers”. He was given the authority to name the Armed Forces Chiefs; declare war; and veto candidates for the Presidency. Unofficial results showed that the draft constitution, which would make Iran a theocracy, garnered 99% approval. The all-powerful Ayatollahs would be empowered to commute sentences imposed by the courts. These developments would make any sane bystander shudder, but the raid on the Embassy takes the cake!

The action defies any logical analysis. There have been certain factions in Iran opposing these trends – the Azerbaijanis under Ayatollah Shariat-Madari, the Kurdish and Baluchi rebels, and the Sunni minorities of Iran. In fact, certain factions of the Army turned back to the middle-class conservatism for which Shapour Bakhtiar stood. These voices of protest were, of course, being silenced by Khomeini who hoped to cash in on the violent anti-Shah and anti-US feeling running high in Iran. The Security Council issued the order for the release of the hostages twice – Mr. Sergio Palacios De Vizzio of Bolivia, the Council President, and Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the UN Secretary-General, had both issued this order on behalf of all the members of the UN. The World Court lent its voice to the appeal, but the impasse continued. Mr. Bani-Sadr proved amenable to negotiation, suggesting that – if the Shah left the US territory; if the UN agreed to a trial of his crimes; and if the Shah’s wealth were remitted to Iran – the release of the hostages might be secured. He paid for his liberal attitude by having to step out of the Foreign Minister’s shoes, to make place for Mr. Sadegh Gotbzadeh. The impasse still continues – long after Christmas – despite The US economic freeze on Iranian assets worth $8 billion, the presence of a US fleet of 21 ships at 24 hours away from the Straits of Hormuz with 135 US carrier planes aboard, the threat of a US naval blockade, and the reality of an economic blockade by some allies of the NATO. The Shah left for Panama on December 15. In fact, even the Panama government has shown itself willing to consider extraditing the Shah, if Iran could bring an exact and convincing description of his regime within 60 days, provided, of course, that the hostages were first released. Even this has failed to soften the Iranian stand.

Anti-US feelings seem to have set aflame the oil-rich tract of Iran. Dr. Kurt Waldheim had hinted at the possibility of bringing the Shah to book. Perhaps the Iranians were not wrong in demanding that. They accused the Shah of massacring 100,000 people (the Shah admitted to about 2000, which is bad enough); of setting the Savak or Secret Police to use inhuman methods of torture; and of amassing huge amounts of wealth. The Shah estimates his wealth at $50–100 million; whereas, Mr. Bani-Sadr places it at $30 billion. Libya and Albania even lauded the attack on the Embassy. The US Embassy at Tripoli was attacked. Saudi Arabia passively supported Iran’s anti-US stance by refusing to make good the shortage of oil that America would experience as a result of the stoppage of Iranian oil. Economic pressures are mounting up in the West. Iran’s decision not to repay its international loans amounting to $15 billion has hit many Western banks. Chase-Manhattan of New York was the first to announce that Iran had defaulted on its $500-million loan. This loan was raised by a major international consortium of banks, which included the National Westminster of UK, the Swiss Bank Corporation, and the Toronto Dominion Bank.

It is clear that many multiplier effects are going to follow from Khomeini’s action. The trend of the economic multiplier has been outlined, but it is the political multiplier that is more threatening. The Soviet Union is maintaining an ominous silence, and there is worrisome awareness that a treaty of 1921 allows that “in case any third countries tend … to make Persian territory a base for military attacks against Russia … the Soviet Government shall have the right to sends its army into Persia, in order to take the necessary military steps in its own defence”.

In 1941, the Soviet Union was instrumental in getting the stable-boy-turned-Emperor Reza Shah deposed, and his son, the present Shah, installed on the throne. US interest in the oilfields soon grew, and the US was getting 40% on what was formerly an exclusively British monopoly. Hence, when Mossadegh – who was very Socialist in his views – came to power in 1953, the CIA, under Kermit Roosevelt, lost no time in toppling him and reinstalling the Shah, complete with the Savak. Perhaps this accounted for the anti-US wave in Iran.

Another disturbing circumstance is the fact that Afghanistan is turning out to be Moscow’s Vietnam, with the successive executions of Noor Mohamed Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, who were both Marxist and pro-Russian. The latest comer, Mr. Babrak Karmal, probably differs from his predecessors only as regards the affection for the Russians. This does not alter the fact that the nationalists are staging a huge pro-Islamic protest against the Russian presence there. The echoes of this nationalist uprising can be heard in Pakistan, where Zia is trying to hold off the Sword of Damocles under the shield of an “Islamic Bomb”.

It looks as if Macbeth’s witches have been creating a new concoction – anti-Americanism, pro-Islamism, the Shia–Sunni conflict at Mecca, Russians, Marxists, and the Islamic Bomb being the major ingredients. Instead of pouring oil on troubled waters, they are adding oil or fuel to the fire in the Middle East and chanting, “Double, double, toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble”.

See Note at the bottom.

Note courtesy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis:

The Iran hostage crisis, also known in Iran as Conquest of the American Spy Den, was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Sixty-six American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. President Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy," adding that "the United States will not yield to blackmail."

The Shah left the United States in December 1979 and was ultimately granted asylum in Egypt, where he died from complications of cancer on July 27, 1980. In September of 1980, the military of Iraq invaded Iran, marking the beginning of the Iran–Iraq War. These events led the Iranian government to enter negotiations with the U.S., with Algeria acting as mediator. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the day after the signing of the Algiers Accords, just minutes after the new American president, Ronald Reagan, was sworn into office.
Considered a pivotal episode in the history of Iran–United States relations, in Iran, the crisis strengthened the prestige of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the political power of those who supported theocracy and opposed any normalisation of relations with the West. The crisis also marked the beginning of U.S.legal action resulting in economic sanctions against Iran, further weakening ties between Iran and the United States.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev

This is an article written by my 9th standard student, Pradeep Shenoy, in January 1992 when I was handling my first teaching job at East West School as English and Social Studies teacher.

 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev

 

Mikhail Gorbachev, whose popularity at one time had soared to the high heavens, has now been forced into retirement, with his entire career – along with all that he stood for – totally disillusioned and tarnished, and he has left nothing but a broken Soviet Union and unending criticism in his wake.

Gorbachev, born in 1931 to a peasant family of Kravagol near the Caucasus Mountains, was brought up in the atmosphere of Stalin’s murderous campaigns against independent peasantry. He had lost many of his kith and kin to these selfsame campaigns. Though filled with hate for Stalinism, he still did not give up his faith in Communism. Instead, like Kruschev before him, he began to dream of a humane, socialist Soviet.

Whatever his principles, Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by its Central Committee, replacing Mr. Konstantin Chernenko. When he came to power, the Soviet economy was in a shambles. The USSR was left far behind by its counterparts in Science and Technology, and Socialism was fast losing acclaim all over the Union.

On ascending the Presidentship, Gorbachev promised a better Soviet Union through change in the existing Socialist policies, hard-hitting economic reforms, and a peaceful Soviet. However, what he ultimately achieved was totally different.

To Mr. Gorbachev’s conviction that hardline Communism would soon be extinct was added its proof – the fall of the Communist empire all over Eastern Europe. The countries of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania had shaken off  the old order and had replaced it with multiparty democracies. It was then that Gorbachev’s popularity rose, for by merely refusing to intervene and reinstall Communism in these countries by b force, Gorbachev had proved his willingness to abolish the old Stalinist principles.

Ending the Cold War was relatively more difficult. Mr. Gorbachev tried his best to show to the West that all he wanted was peace, but the progress was slow. Finally he signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Ronald Reagan in Washington as a sign of more to come. He entered into many other pacts with the United States for the reduction of nuclear weapons, army strength, and conventional weaponry.

Then there were the political reforms at home in the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev had decided to enforce his idea of “Communism with a human face”, and created many policies to that end.

The first of these was Glasnost – openness. This meant openness or freedom to the Press and the public from censorship. It ultimately turned out to be a trick that backfired, for it allowed criticism of the government, and, sure enough, there was an unprecedented boom in criticism that ultimately swept him aside.

Another policy was that of Perestroika (restructuring), which was a clear example of the indecisiveness and weakness of this man. At first he spoke vaguely of economic reforms, allowing small private businesses to operate, letting the prices free, and so on. However, he achieved precious little. This was because of Gorbachev’s strength and weakness – compromise. Agreed, it was what had saved the Soviet Union on many an occasion from a return to hardline Communism, but, by refusing to make a decisive break with the past, he had lost the chance to introduce meaningful economic reforms.

All this time the economy had been slowly sinking. The Soviet Union’s resources of oil and gold were what had kept the economy alive so long, and had allowed the postponement of hard-hitting reforms. But when the oil and gold stocks came crashing down, it put an irreparable hole in the economy. Gorbachev had ignored the Marxist principle that politics boils down to economics, and had busied himself with political reforms, and had paid its consequences. The budget had a three-percent deficit when Gorbachev came, and now, after he left, it had shot up to an unbelievable 50%. The external debt had quadrupled to almost $67 billion.

Thus were shown two effects very clearly. One was that Gorbachev, though desiring more freedom for his subjects and more kind reforms, had unfortunately refused to once and for all break with the past and overhaul the dying Soviet machinery.

The other was that these economic reforms had created dissent in the public, and Gorbachev had grown more and more unpopular.

Besides, after being brought so close to democracy, and then seeing it being withheld, the Soviets were bound to fight to cover up that gap to total democracy.

Thus it was inevitable that the Soviet Union was to be ruined. Also inevitable was Gorbachev’s resignation as President if a nonexistent Soviet Union. But there is a praise in this for Gorbachev, for he could well have created yet another Tiananmen square, thus prolonging his rule.

There is but one thing left to say, and that is that the hardline Communists of the Soviet had decided that they had to stop Gorbachev from going too far (not knowing that he had already done so), and they made a feeble attempt at a coup. But the society was already too free to be caged again, and the coup was thus thwarted with ease. The only thing that this senseless move – led by Gonnady Yanayev – achieved was the speeding up of the Soviet Union’s demise.

As far as Mr. Gorbachev’s personal career was concerned, his reforms overtook him. They were the Frankenstein’s monster that gobbled the whole Soviet Union with him.

But not everything is over yet. What is to become of the new republics that the Soviet Union has left in its wake? The present situation of a turbulent economy might just lead to the violent reinstallation of a totalitarian government. Then what will we get – 14 hardline Communist countries to replace one softy? Then all the people in the world lamenting over their mistake and saying that Gorbachev was right will bring back neither the Soviet nor another Gorbachev.

(Gorbachev has not retired from politics; so maybe there is still hope of the resurrection of the Soviet Union.)