America's involvement in Iran: Past and Present

Historically, the United States was been involved in Iran during the Cold War. According to Howard Zinn's A People's History of American Empire after the U.S. Embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 and hostages were taken, shocking evidence was found. Shredded top secret documents "exposed deep U.S. involvement in propping up the Shah's brutal regime." It all started with a period of unrest. From 1912 to 1951, the British worked to maintain control of Iranian oil through the Anglo-Iranian company (A.I.O.C). Mossadegh's election as Prime Minister in 1951 led to a nationalization of the oil industry and a British trade embargo. They were preparing for war but U.S. President Harry Truman demanded they negotiate with the Iranian Prime Minister. Eventually Mr. Truman won the fight, making the British back down. But wasn't the end of the story.

Britain next asked for help in overthrowing Mossadegh and the CIA under Allen Dulles's command created a plan for doing so. The United States started "Operation Ajax" to overthrow the Prime Minister covertly through propaganda, violence and cleverness. However Wasinghton told operatives in Iran to abandon the plot when Mossedegh escaped, but the operatives pressed on. Through pro-Shah rioting, causing chaos on the streets, Mossadegh evacuated his house. General Zahedi, the new Prime Minister rode through the streets on a tank and annouced the overthrow of Mossadegh as the Prime Minister. Days later he turned himself in and declared he was a patriot. He said the only crime he had committed was nationalizing Iran's oil and removing western colonialism from the country. For this statement and his “anti-Western” actions, he was convicted and sentenced to three years. Afterwards,$5 million was covertly transferred to the new government and U.S. oil companies gobbled up 40% of Iran's oil market.

The installed ruler named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, commonly called the Shah, brutally governed Iran for next 26 years. Almost immediately, sixty former Mossadegh supporters and supporters of the two major national parties were executed. Hundreds more were arrested and national parties were banned. In 1963, the Shah pushed for reforms in culture, society, economics and elections called the "White Revolution." This infuriated Muslim clerics, including Aytollah Ruhollah Khomieni. His speeches inspired massive demonstrations which were stopped by the Savak, the Shah's secret police through violent repression (One must remember that these forces received $500,000 from the Kennedy Administration for "riot control”). Every opposition action led to torture in prisons, mosques or the streets. In early 1978 hundreds of protesters were massacred in Qom by the Shah's armed forces. This ratcheted up the tension and the Khomieni called for the ousting of the Shah. In fact, the Shah left on his own accord. Khomieni returned to Iran in the early months of 1979, calling for a national referendum. A few months later he was declared the Supreme Leader of an Islamic Republic by popular vote. After debating the issue for a long time, President Jimmy Carter accepted the Shah into America to give him access to some of the best medical facilities in the world. Radicals were outraged and with Khomieni's call for mass demonstrations, the U.S. Embassy was occupied by Iranian students. Remembering their history these occupiers wanted to prevent another possible coup d'etat led by America. Ever since, relations gave been strained with the Islamic Republic and hurt with the rest of the Arab World.

In the present, that history has come up again and again in Iranian consciousness. According to WikiLeaks cache of U.S. embassy cables, there is number of different discoveries about Iran. For one, the United States has been involved in Iran in some way since that time and people are tired of reforms. A timeline of the cables sent about Iran shows an interesting perspective of American by Iranians and vice versa.

On August 3^rd 2009 a cable stated: “In a sprawling indictment, the IRIG [Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps] linked US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media outlets, the MEK, human and labor rights activists such as Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The prosecutor read a sprawling indictment linking US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media, the MEK, human and labor rights activists and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The Islamic Republic has long used manufactured confessions and woven elaborate charges involving foreign hands to discredit both activists with political aspirations and apolitical critics of the ruling system.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI327&q=dissidents%20iran)

This accusation, although the U.S. government denies it in the cable (in the last sentence), has some basis. One must realize that the story of the cable changed twice, first the IRIG linked groups to the conspiracy then it becomes the prosecutor that read the indictment. The USA Today reported a story that almost confirms the indictment. In 2009, the news outlet wrote in an article titled “U.S. grants support to Iranian dissidents”: “The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush…U.S. efforts to support Iranian opposition groups have been criticized in recent years as veiled attempts to promote "regime change," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American advocacy group. The grants enable Iran's rulers to paint opponents as tools of the United States, he said.” 

Four days after 9/11, on September 15^th, 2001, one cable remarked “OF THE FEW IRANIANS INTERVIEWED WHO APPEARED TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF TEHRAN'S POLICIES, COUNTERBALANCING US INFLUENCE IN THE REGION WAS SEEN TO BE A MOTIVATOR FOR THE REGIME'S ACTIVITIES…HEAVY US SUPPORT OF ISRAEL HAS INSURED THAT IRAN WOULD SUPPORT THE PALESTINIANS, AND PROVIDED A CONVENIENT PRETEXT FOR US CONTINUANCE…DUBAI-BASED IRANIAN ENTREPRENEUR PROVIDED HIS OPINION OF WESTERN ASSERTIONS THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS A STATE SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM…[HE] MAINTAINED THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING "ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN ISRAEL, THE US OR UK." ACCORDING TO HIM THE US SELECTIVELY SINGLES OUT IRAN AND HE USED THE UAE-IRAN DISPUTE OVER ABU MUSA AND THE TUNBS ISLANDS AS AN EXAMPLE, SAYING THAT THE ONLY TIME THE GCC MAKES BELLIGERENT STATEMENTS AGAINST IRAN IS WHEN THE US IS PRESSURING THEM TO PUNISH TEHRAN. HE CONTINUED THAT THE ORGANS IN IRAN THAT CARRY OUT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM--SUCH AS THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES--ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RETAIN POWER.”  (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=01DUBAI1141&q=iran)

The most important parts in this cable, other than the counterbalancing of the U.S. influence by Iran are important to understanding the Iranian perspective.  The cable records the argument of an Iranian entrepreneur who maintained that Iran is following in Israeli, American and British footsteps. Noam Chomsky remarks in his book “9-11” about American footsteps. He writes: “We should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is the regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council Resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law.” As to the claim that Britain is a terrorist state, there is some validity to that statement as well. One book came out on the subject seems to summarize this thought. The synopsis of the book states: “Under the noses of the British government, parliament, intelligence services and police, Britain has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism. Terrorists have used it to plot, finance, recruit and train for atrocities throughout the world, and now also at home.” For the idea that Israel is a terrorist state, there is also evidence for that claim as well. One website argues that exact point:  “It hardly needs to be pointed out that Israel is a terrorist state. Brutal repression of, and bloody attacks on, Palestinian civilians with the official Israeli aim of causing a change in the policies or actions of the Palestinian leadership is a clear case of terrorism…Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism.” However, the businessman’s point is still not a valid defense of Iranian actions. It reminds me of the times Republicans exclaim that climate change legislation isn’t in effect in China and as result is shouldn’t happen in America.

Only seventeen years earlier the United States had attempted a coup in Iran and on May 21^st, 1997, a diplomatic cable stated: “REFERRING TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IN IRANIAN COURTS FOR U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, KHOMEINI FULMINATED THAT THEY HAVE REDUCED THE IRANIAN PEOPLE "TO A LEVEL LOWER THAN THAT OF AN AMERICAN DOG…THEREFORE, A PREEMINENT CONSIDERATION FOR IRAN'S RULERS ON ANY CONTACTS WITH THE U.S., WILL BE HOW TO ENGAGE WITHOUT APPEARING TO COMPROMISE THIS PRIZED INDEPENDENCE…THEY FIND IT SO INCREDIBLE THAT THEY BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY DO SEE IT BUT ARE CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY AND SUBTLY HELP THE REGIME…IT IS ONLY A SHORT LEAP TO THE FERVENT STATEMENT THAT THE U.S. OUSTED THE SHAH AND INSTALLED KHOMEINI BECAUSE IRAN WAS BECOMING TOO POWERFUL IN THE REGION FOR OUR TASTE. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY SOUND INCREDIBLE AND FAR-FETCHED TO AMERICAN EARS, VARIANTS OF THIS BELIEF ARE AMAZINGLY WIDESPREAD AMONG THE IRANIANS WE MEET…FROM THE IRANIAN REGIME'S PERSPECTIVE, THE UNITED STATES HAS CONTROL OVER THEIR DESTINY. THEY TRULY WORRY THAT WE CAN UNSEAT THEM IF WE WISH. EVEN IF THEY CALCULATE THAT WE HAVE NO PRESENT INTENTION TO DO SO, THEY PROBABLY NURSE FEARS THIS COULD CHANGE…THE U.S. ARE AS MUCH A DOMESTIC AS A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE FOR IRAN…U.S. HAS NO PRESENCE AND LITTLE INFLUENCE IN IRAN…THIS ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS. THE IRANIANS DON'T SEE IT THIS WAY…THE U.S. HAS ATTEMPTED TO DESIGN A CAGE OF SANCTIONS AND PRESSURE TO CONTAIN IRAN. BUT THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN KEEPING THE PERSIAN LION IN A CAGE AND JUST PRODDING HIM, GETTING HIM MADDER AND MADDER. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PRODDING, BUT RATHER THAT, AT SOME POINT, THE DOOR TO THE CAGE MUST BE OPENED SO THE LION KNOWS WHICH WAY TO GO.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=97ABUDHABI3777&q=iran)

This cable is interesting for a few reasons. One reason is because it mentions the anger toward the United States, less than twenty years after the American-installed ruler, the Shah, was deposed. To put those statements into context, one must remember that the United States had military actions in Iran in 1946, 1980, 1984 and 1987-8. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, causing great outrage. The fact that United States says its influence is little is an understatement considering the fact that globalization has spread American products far in wide, even at that time. On the other hand, one statement shocked me more than everything else in the cable: “ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS.” From that quoted portion it seems the U.S. government wants a covert operation in the country or the possible overthrow of the government. Today, according to an AP article Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are calling for a similar objective: the overthrow of governments in Syria and Iran. Rick Santorum did not go to that extreme yet he said covert operations are needed in Iran and Rick Perry called for sanctions, the Obama Administration’s approach.

The previous year, the covert regime change in Iraq had ended and on November 12^th, 1996 a cable stated: “ABDUL HAQ, A FORMER LEADER OF THE AFGHAN COMMANDERS SHURA…SAID TEHRAN VIEWED THE TALEBAN AS A U.S. TOOL AIMED AT DESTABILIZING IRAN. HE ALSO FELT THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN WAS DRIVING IRAN AND SUNNI EXTREMISTS INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS AND IF THIS CONTINUES "OUR MAIN EXPORT WILL BE TERRORISM."…COMMENTING ON HIS VISITS TO IRAN, ABDUL HAQ SAID THE IRANIANS HATE THE TALEBAN. HE SAID THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THE TALEBAN ARE NOT MERELY CONTROLLED BY PAKISTAN, BUT ARE PART OF A SINISTER U.S. DESIGN TO DESTABILIZE IRAN. THE REASONING APPEARS TO BE THAT A HARDLINE SUNNI ISLAMIST REGIME IN AFGHANISTAN MIGHT APPEAL TO THE LARGE SUNNI ETHNIC MINORITIES THAT INHABIT IRAN'S PERIPHERY, E.G. IN BALUCHISTAN. HE ALSO SAID THAT, LIKE IT OR NOT, THE U.S. WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE TALEBAN AMONG AFGHANS. IF THEY WIN, THE U.S. WILL BE SEEN TO GAIN. IF THEY LOSE, IRAN WILL BE SEEN TO HAVE GAINED… HE SAID IRAN IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT A PAKISTAN- AFGHANISTAN COMMERCIAL ALLIANCE COMPETING WITH IRAN FOR ACCESS TO THE MARKETS OF THE CIS.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=96ABUDHABI7350&q=iran)

I found this cable interesting because it made clear that the Taliban was perceived as a U.S. instrument for change in that country. A similarity to those possible covert activities came up in an article published eleven days ago. The WSWS wrote: “The United States is waging a sustained covert campaign of destabilisation against Iran, focusing on efforts to disrupt its nuclear program… President Barack Obama…issue[d] a bellicose statement threatening possible military action: “No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” he said….Britain’s Daily Mail asked bluntly, “Has the West's war with Iran already begun? Mystery explosions at nuke sites, ‘assassinated’ scientists and downed drones fuel fears covert conflict is under way.” Writing in the Guardian, Seamus Milne was less equivocal. “War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us,” ran his comment. “For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France.” Paul Vallely, in the Independent, was equally blunt, declaring, “War on Iran has begun. And it is madness.”” Even if the allegations about the Taliban weren’t correct in 1997, covert operations are alive and well in Iran today, led by United States (confirmed by the downing of the CIA drone) and not surprisingly by Israel as well.

Getting back to the present, the year of the Iranian election, a cable stated on August 3^rd: “The Syrian media consultant said that the heated debates before the election, in which the three challengers -- Mousavi, Karroubi, and Reza'i -- publicly criticized Ahmadinejad for corruption and economic mismanagement, made it clear to Arabs that this election was about Iran, not the U.S. This distinction, coupled with the U.S.' restraint in commenting on the election, provided an unprecedented window for Arab commentators to criticize Ahmadinejad without appearing to side with the U.S…One Saudi commentator contrasted Turkish regional mediation, which he described as a positive force in the region, with Iranian regional intervention, which he called pernicious and destabilizing. A Lebanese commentator noted the irony of Iran accusing outsiders of interfering in its internal affairs when there is not "one corner of the Arab world" where Iran does not intervene behind the scenes.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI316&q=dissidents%20iran)

I find this cable one of the most interesting of all. The challengers to Ahmadinejad argue that the election should be about “Iran, not the U.S.” On the next line the cable comments that reporters will not “appear…to side with the U.S.” Well, are they sided with the America? That is a question to be answered with further research. Coming back to the cable, the Saudi and Lebanese commentators seem to be picked out of the blue, supporting the U.S. government’s narrative. This cable does not mention (conveniently) the most recent plot to overthrow Iran’s government. An ABC article published in 2007 remarks: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions... The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran. Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks… Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation… As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region.”” If you scoff at this idea, Wikipedia puts in even clearer words. The idea sounds similar to Operation Ajax, the covert operation that ended up with the deposing of the democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh in 1953. Wikipedia’s page on U.S. covert regime change states the following:

“President Bush secretly authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to topple the Iranian government. The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions. The United States began to target Iran and several other Muslim countries for regime change starting at least in 2001…An article in the New York Times in 2005 said that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran's internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government…Un-named administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year "for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran" including broadcast activities, Internet programs and "working with people inside Iran" on advancing political activities there. In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government… The U.S. provides no direct funding to the [Pakistani militant] group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Persian Gulf states…The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.””  

In conclusion, it is right for Iran to be angry at the United States due to current actions there covertly and actions in the past. One of those actions was the 1953 overthrow of government, mentioned throughout this article, leading to a hostage crisis and the leadership of Islamic fundamentalists led by Khomeini. I hope that all those reading this gain understanding of the perspectives on this topic and participate in peaceful, direct action to bring about change.

Spanish elections: A victory for the People's Party

After scanning the article on NPR on the subject, I decided to do some further research. I have previously written about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, a World Revolution and the European Revolution. I thought this topic would relate directly to those issues.

National Public Radio wrote: "Conservatives will be officially sworn into power in Spain this week for the first time in nearly eight years. Since 2004, the country's Socialists have legalized gay marriage, liberalized abortion laws and presided over the country's biggest-ever financial boom — and now downturn. The new year is likely to be marked by extreme austerity and diminished expectations." (http://n.npr.org/NPRI/jN266799891_1142395_1142383_Z.htm) However, what they leave out is the protests in Europe which many activists say correctly that it's not being covered by the media in Europe or elsewhere. NPR is right on one count: that this year will have extreme austerity. The Real News Network has focused on this subject in a number of their videos, along with the protests as well: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7102, http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7095 and http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=6821.

One may ask: What really happened in the elections in Spain? Well, I used the search engine icerocket.com to find an answer to the question. In an article titled "The Pain in Spain," Trisha Craig published on Eurovison, this question is tackled. The article notes the change in policy by the Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s newly elected President. According to the article , Mr. Rajoy "gave his first speech in his new role before Parliament and laid out his plans to deal with the crisis...Some of the highlights of Rajoy’s plan include: Linking pensions to the consumer price index, the only increase in the proposal...Freezing public sector employment except for the armed and security forces and basic public services...Reform of regulatory bodies...Eliminat[ing] early retirements to bring the real age of retirement into line with the official age and not repeal the law raising the retirement age to 67 (that the PP had opposed while in opposition)...Shifting public holidays to the nearest Monday to avoid the ‘bridge’ holidays where any holiday now typically turns into stretch of days off to the closest weekend...There is a focus on eliminating waste, reducing costs and improving services...Rajoy has proposed...a tax cut for firms that hire young workers and women in order to tackle the high unemployment among those groups...[There is also a] lack of new taxes [in this plan]." (http://patriciacraig.blogspot.com/2011/12/pain-in-spain.html) One may ask if these ideas promote further austerity and cutting in Europe. The American-based Heritage Foundation declared that "Spain Votes Out Big Government" (http://jacecar.com/2011/11/podcast-spain-votes-out-big-government/).

Wikipedia had a comprehensive article on the subject better than some of the blogs. Of the six parties, only one, the People's Party got a majority in the government

(All 350 seats of the Congress of Deputies and 264 seats in the Senate were open for slection). That majority was 186 seats overall or 43.87% of the vote, up 32 seats from the previous election. The PSOE, the current and ruling party leaving in December gained, 39.94% of the vote, 110 seats, 59 less seats than the previous election. The United Left, UPyD CiU and Amaiur gained 9, 4, 6 and 7 seats respectfully.

What does that mean for the citizenry? Will they prosper or will they have more problems? A second Great Depression is occuring worldwide, so many are feeling the pinch. Even the writer of this article predicts that when he enters college he will be poor and have no job. One must remember that Spain has between 23 and 30% unemployed.

Welsh Ramblings wrote a blog that in a sense answered some of those questions. Mr. Ramblings wrote: "The election results from the Spanish state illustrate perfectly the political deficit...The centre-left PSOE has been ousted by the Partido Popular, the centre-right Spanish nationalist party founded largely by reformists from the tail end of the Franco dictatorship...it is difficult to believe that the PP has won an absolute majority. The PP is even more right-wing than the social democrats who...implement...the same medicine that the PP is offering...The PP's solution to the Spanish state's woes comprises yet more austerity. They are utterly tied to the same economic model as PSOE. They have made populist gestures about protecting pensions, health and education, and only cutting "superfluous spending" and bureaucracy, but you sense that if resolving the crisis was that easy, the centre-left would have had no problems." (http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-and-centre-left.html)

Spanish bloggers reacted in different ways to the election in their country. Sarah, a citizen living in Madrid, blogged on the election but knew very little on politics. She commented that "the whole country has been really unhappy with Zapatero for a while now because of the economy, the lack of jobs, etc." (http://sarahenmadrid.blogspot.com/2011/12/spanish-elections.html) She said that legalizing gay marriage and abortion within his term she agreed with and were his outstanding accomplishments during his term of office. As a result she did not like the current leader elected by the people wrote "we'll see how it goes." Bloodbuzed's blogspot takes a competely different approach. The blogpost questions the whole Parliamentary system in an article titled "Spanish Elections Results: and the real parliament is..." (http://bloodbuzzed.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-results-and-real.html) The blog user named Mr. September writes: "The results of Sunday's parliamentary elections prove...The axiom one person, one vote, is false in Spain...The variations are so disproportionate (thanks to the unacceptable criteria of the circumscription divisions in provinces) that the whole system HAS to be questioned." He proposes that Spanish elections are done with a proportional system to better reflect the will of the people. He later clarifies his view and calls for people to stand up against the injustice: I'm not saying the electoral system has to be a pure proportional one, but it is clear that what we have now doesn't represent equally the voters-citizens of this country. We have to fight to change this."

Who else is fighting for change? The Spanish protestors! They are the same ones I wrote about on August 6th of this year. At the time I wrote: "The world revolution has its roots in France where the “European Revolution” was dubbed by protestors began. According to europeanrevolution.net[v]: “At least 20 of the most important cities in France have their square occupied by youth protesters. Calling themseleves the Indignés…France seems to hold a leading position in the new European Revolution...They demand a Constitutive Assembly to make govern[ments] ‘remember’ that ‘people [are] sovereign’…stress…inequality of o[p]portunities and priorities between represented and representat[ives], between reality and ideologies. They ask [their voice to be heard by the governments].” The demands juts articulated shows that people (possibly in the millions) are serious with their concerns and want a changed world order...To see the impetus for the action in France, you have to go back to the protests in Spain. At one point, protesters called for a world revolution and future reforms as written on Raw Story[vi]: “From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year...Calling for "Real Democracy Now," the protests, popularly known as M-15, were called to condemn Spain's soaring unemployment, economic crisis, politicians in general, and corruption.”...Protests that started in Spain were influenced by young people who called for the end of overarching governments and the creation of democracies across the Arab World. Other Europeans had similar thoughts, causing organized disagreement across the region."

(http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/08/grassroots-protests-world-revolution.html?m=1) Those who protested are directly affected by this election. I found a few more sources to back up my analysis at the time which is still valid. The P2P foundation has an article describing the Spanish protestors a bit more. They write: "the #15M or Indignados movement...demand[ed]...“We Want Real Democracy Now.” These demonstrations began the 15th of May, and grew to the largest cycle of mobilizations in the history of Spanish democracy. After 15m, a group in Madrid was inspired by the occpation of squares in the Arab countries, and decided to occupy the Plaza del Sol...This was not marginally supported. 80% support for the protests (by one survey)...The Indignados movement has been represented in the media largely as people protesting in the street...There have also been concrete initiatives to emerge, including the occupation of houses to provide homes to the foreclosed, the organizing of solidarity networks to block evictions from homes, the increase of self-education networks, all emerging from people who have met f2f in the squares...the Indignant mobilization is willing not only to make demands on public policy and fighting corruption, but the squares also serve as a space where people meet each other and then organize to solve common needs." (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-spanish-revolution-the-internet-from-free-culture-to-meta-politics-summary/2011/11/24) Arfues.com, which republished an op-ed from the German paper, "The European" echoes those sentiments. From the op-ed one could believe that the movement is opposed the the socialist-run government: "Spanish government not only kept ignoring all the ‘indignant’ movement, but also kept fortifying the establishment. The President of the Congress, José Bono, told in a TV interview that both major parties, Socialist and People’s parties, should get along more, and that all other minor parties should be kept outside the parliament. And then the government changed the electoral law in order to require all those parties without representation a minimum of endorsements in order to allow them to enter the electoral race in November 20th...After years and years of telling everybody that changing the Spanish Constitution was not only difficult but impossible, after the international requests to fix the Spanish sovereign debt issues, both parties accorded to modify it, and they did it. In less than two weeks and without any parliamentary debate...the privatizations of the ‘cajas’ and their conversion into ‘normal’ banks, not only the people knew that those ‘cajas’ vaults’ were empty, but that the managers and directors are getting billions in bonuses and compensations." (http://arfues.net/2011/11/25/the-demands-to-build-a-statist-cage-op-ed-for-the-european/)

I did a little research into the movement, finding a site about the European Revolution. On europeanrevolution.org it states: "WE DEMAND A TRUTH DEMOCRACY WE DEMAND TO BE THE ONES THAT TRULY CHOOSE THE COURSE YOU POLITICIANS ARE THE CAPTAINS WHO NAVEGATE BY THE DIRECTION OF THE CITIZEN...We are united for something stronger than a political party We are united because our INDIGNATION for your complicity with the financial corporation that steal our lives We are united by the SHAME for your corruption when you should be a role model We are united by SATIETY for your spent and false speech that nobody believes anymore."

From the opinions of Spanish bloggers, activists and others one may wonder what the duty of the new leadership is in Spain. A few blogs have answered that question. The admin of GetafeSpain.com writes in an article titled "Al Gore of Spanish politics": "Mr Rajoy must summon super powers to lower Spain’s unemployment rate, reform the banking system, enact long-awaited labour reforms and bring about growth." (http://getafespain.com/news/will-victory-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-spains-new-pm) Another blog, Casey Pop's blog writes of different duties for new leadership. In a blogpost titled "Today's Spanish Elections May Say Something about the French and American Presidential Elections in 2012" the author states: "it is the largest majority the party has had since Spain became a democracy after the fall of Franco and it means that the PP will be able to rule without forming any coalitions with the Greens or other minority parties...The right campaigned hard on the need to put into place a rigorous austerity program to try to save the country from default by reducing the government deficit and reassuring banks who buy Spanish bonds that the country is serious about putting its fiscal house in order...The new Popular Party prime minister will take office on the 20th of December...his job, he says, is to try to keep Spain out of recession, and to reduce unemployment and the deficit at the same time (not an easy trick)." (http://casey-pops.blogspot.com/2011/11/todays-spanish-elections-may-say.html) Also there is another blogger who comments on the electoom as well. At the end of an article about Germany there is a mention of the Spanish elections: "Of anything they will be worth today's Spanish elections, if the winner when being known the official result is calling to Berlin to know that he has to make, they will respond him that the same thing that was making the loser, to clip, to brake, and to try to be disciplined or otherwise, he is left without credit, without ratio of solvency, without structural grants, and with a sanction of 1000 million Eurus for excessive unemployment."

(http://blagusadas.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-this-it-was-of-context-european.html) But this does not tell about the protestors.

The consequence of this election with rule by the People's Party is definately from the protesting itself in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. 72% of the people turned out, but many were very skeptical. This election will not only affect the worldwide movement against economic inequality and austerity (interlinked) but will likely lead to more protests in the country.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A new political spectrum: solving problems of the left-right system

Almost every blog ends up with a battle over the current political spectrum that has liberal at one end, conservative at the other and moderate in the middle. There are other extremes mentioned like radical and reactionary, but it is too limiting. Another problem is the current system used was created during the 1790s in France, denoting a “left” and “right.” The new spectrum I created is below:

From a number of sources, including definitions I created myself, there is the definition of each term on the eight-pointed spectrum above. 

I’ll start with the terms Aristocrat and Democrat. The idea came from Noam Chomsky’s book titled Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Mr. Chomsky writes that “Thomas Jefferson…made a distinction between two groups—aristocrats and democrats. Aristocrats “fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.” This view is held by respectable intellectuals in many different societies today, and is quite similar to the Leninist doctrine that the vanguard party of radical intellectuals should take power and lead the stupid masses to a bright future. Most liberals are aristocrats in Jefferson’s sense…Henry Kissinger is an extreme example of an aristocrat. Democrats, Jefferson wrote, “identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish them and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interest. In other words, democrats believe the people should be in control, whether or not they’re going to make the right decisions. Democrats exist today, but their becoming increasingly marginal.” 

When the word ‘Democrats’ is mentioned, I am not talking about those of the Democratic Party. If one looks at the party platforms and compares them, you could consider the Republican and Democratic parties to be one big party with two parts, having some differences, but not many. Also one could say that both of the so-called major parties are separate, but so similar that the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” don’t mean anything. If one is to interpret this correctly, think of Democrats in the Jeffersonian sense, as those that want the people in control, not some elite class. Do not think of the word “Democrat” in this political spectrum as those that cave in on certain issues in the federal legislature, do insider trading legally for the most part and get money from special interests. Those that are running in the 2012 election for “the 99%” as shown on Occupy the Ballot’s website would encompass Democrats (in the Jeffersonian sense). More evident of this is in the working document of OWS candidates, which can be seen below:

 

In my reading of different internet postings, I read once that one person characterized the world as divided between those for and those against corporations. As a result that was incorporated into the new spectrum in the words corporatist and Non-corporatist (or Anti-corporatist). I’ll start with non-corporatism, which many call “Anti-corporatism.” One blog owner mentioned[i] what they defined this term: “I am a radical anti-corporatist. I think all should be free to organize to further their own ends, but not by implic[i]tly and malignantly conspiring to reduce the interests of everyone else.” I searched the internet and looked for more information on this term. Another person on topix briefly mentioned it: “I'm anti-corporatism [because] capitalism eventually leads to corporatism especially in America where everything has a price tag on it.”[ii] I kept going through topix and found more material. While I don’t agree with the viewpoint expressed toward the Occupy Wall Street protesters from the topix forum, some of the text still applies to this discussion: “I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-corporatist. I'm against too much power in the hands of too few people who control all the levers of power, no matter who those people are.”[iii] Finally, I looked at The New Moderate blog. One person below the article commented: “I’m increasingly an anti-corporatist. Sure, plenty of corporations make plenty of worthwhile products, but 1) they’ve become far too influential with our elected representatives, and 2) they’ve essentially become winner-take-all games, with the CEOs often earning 1000 times more than the average employee.”[iv] From all of these sources I have concluded that if one is a non-corporatist they are: against grand combinations such as monopolies and trusts, but think that everyone should be able to organize businesses or whatever whenever they want but in a way that benefits others, against an plutocratic-type government with the wealthy wielding major power and reducing the influence of the corporations on the political process. 

 

From all of that, you are probably still wondering what a corporatist is. A University of Massachusetts report gets us a little closer to the answer. It argues that John Maynard Keynes was a corporatist, while defining the word.[v] From the pdf, I picked those words to define this term and a person who embodies this term would:  

•    “decisively reject the traditional theory of perfect competition” 
•  “[accept] the ongoing trend toward increased reliance on public corporations, and argue that the government should…accept the current movement toward cartels, holding companies, trade associations, pools and other forms of monopoly power [and] should proactively assist and accelerate this trend in order to regulate and control it”  
• “[say] The state [should] set goals for these corporations and evaluate their performance, but not manage them directly.” 
•  “[support]...self-regulation [of big business in order to create]…the ultimate corporatist institutional arrangement.”

In the definition of this word, I am not promoting a conspiracy; rather one showing that one who believed these ideals would want a government that benefits big business in some way or another, as well as for their one benefit.

 

The issue of corporatism is on many people’s minds ever since the beginning of this economic crisis which one could call the second Great Depression. However, armed conflict is a major problem that must be put into the political spectrum through the terms “War Hawk” and “Peace Activist.” I’ll start with the latter term. In a facebook comment, one can get closer to its definition. One user states[vi]: “[that in today’s world] the wars rage on costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives.” The same user on Third Party Forum’s facebook group writes of the goal to “eradicate[e]…war by restoring democracy in America.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting had an article about peace activists, mentioning a rally in April where people “were speaking out on a…timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.”[vii] According to a few excerpts from Chris Hayes articles linked on Third Party forum, one can get closer to defining the word at hand. Mr. Hayes inadvertently defines the term as those who oppose “pre-emptive war and occupation” along ending those wars that damage out country’s well-being. From these excerpts, I define a peace activist as one who opposes occupation of other parts of the world, opposes armed conflict (most if not all of it) and wants to take money out of the military budget to help each other at home. 

You are probably wondering what a war hawk is, since I’ve already defined a peace activist. Last year, I wrote about War Hawks and the Tea Party.[viii] More relevant to this discussion as of now is who the original “War Hawks” were: “A group of 10 individuals who…wanted war with Britain [and they corrupted the] President of the United States, James Madison [to go to war with Britain].” Today, that same ideology stays in place with those of this term as those that do not want to cut the military budget and those that want to go to war, increasing the expenditures on the national budget. Those of this position defend themselves saying troops must be worldwide for “national security” or “defending our interests.” In addition, those that support war in any shape or form would fall into this category as well. 

  

While the term “war hawk” and “peace activist” epitomize the struggle over the issue of war, it isn’t enough to complete the spectrum as a whole. Libertarians (Market Anarchist) and Coercive Collectivists must be included as well. Market Anarchists is defined on page 27 of David Miller’s book titled Political Philosophy as those that “claim we could contract and pay individually for the services the state now provides, including crucially for personal protection. In the absence of the state, forms would offer to protect clients and their property, and this would include retrieving property that had been stolen, enforcing contracts, and obtaining compensation for personal injury. So if my neighbour steals something that is mine, instead of calling the (public) police, I would call my protective agency, and they would take action against the troublesome neighbour.” 

William Levinson tacks on some other ideas to this term. He defines these people[ix] as those for equal opportunity, an all-volunteer armed forces, encouraging private citizens to learn how to use firearms and those that are practical recognize the need to pay taxes for collective national defense. In addition, those of this term find flag burning offensive but not punishable by law, say there should be little or no gun control with citizens using weapons for their self-defense as well as the country as a whole against foreign enemies, the government must issue weapons if does not want to restrict military service and people have the right to pray in a school or anywhere else as long as it doesn’t disrupt others. Also these people are for private retirement accounts and pro-choice. In opposition, he defines a “Coercive Collectivist” as one that wants "a higher, nobler, and kinder world based on the sanctity of the Crowd and the villainy of the single person,” those that want flag burning to be illegal, want private security forces and want mandatory school prayer. Furthermore, those of this term believe that there should be mandatory participation in a government retirement plan (like Social Security), want a return of the draft, in support of affirmative action, exclusion of certain racial/ethnic groups and in favor of compulsory abortions. To clarify, one must realize that the person who came created the scale between “coercive collectivist” and “libertarian” was leaning to the side of libertarianism, so he made the other side sound worse. Even so, I believe the terms make sense, but I made some modifications.

This eight-pointed political spectrum as a whole, combining the ideas of those across the internet is a comprehensive way to tell where you are on the political spectrum. In the middle can be whatever term you please, which I leave open to the discretion of the one using the spectrum. In the end, I hope this spectrum solves the problems of the current failures of the political system.

---

[i] http://khanneasuntzu.com/

[ii] http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/mgvm3/loud_and_clear/

[iii] http://www.topix.com/forum/city/portsmouth-oh/TJ31PD9PM9CSKGPHJ/p3

[iv] http://newmoderate.com/2009/10/07/corporatism-and-communism-too-close-for-comfort/

[v] http://people.umass.edu/crotty/JEI_Keynes-corp.pdf

[vi] http://www.facebook.com/notes/nicole-nichols/do-you-have-a-story-to-tell/10150274899909789

[vii] http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

[viii] http://hermannview.tumblr.com/post/1448332035/will-the-tea-party-people-become-the-next-war-hawks

[ix] http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

American “nation” worship: a figment of imagination

After reading the political classic by Gore Vidal, The American Presidency, I have thought about what I consider to be the American imperial machine. Part of that is the belief in nationalism.

               First one must understand what nationalism means. The Pan-Nationalist Movement gives a fine definition of the world. They write in response to a Frequently Asked Question: “Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of "nation," or population group unified by culture, heritage and language. As such, Nationalist is "rule by culture" where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.” Later, the website mentions the idea of a nation + a state (country), called a nation-state. This concept is abstract and it tries to “unify its populations who have little in common on a cultural or ethnic level, and so become competing cultures. These [nation-states] usually take the form of an absolute which will never be demonstrated as being singularly right or wrong, like "freedom" or "free trade," but in the absence of cultural unity what brings people together is economics. Economics thus replaces culture, and soon every object and idea and person is for sale.” Many American politicians today follow the opposite belief of Pan-Nationalism, the idea that each ethnic/cultural group gets their own nation. These political figures try to advance America toward a pure nation-state, where profit is the ultimate motive and where the people are one culture. But that is not possible in the “melting pot” of the United States.

               It all started with President George Washington. Adding the states of Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee during his two terms (1789-1796) led to a push to take over the whole continent. Then, under Thomas Jefferson (early 1800s), unilaterally, without the consent of Congress, the 885,000 square miles, the “Louisiana Purchase” was bought for over $27 million. This expanded the United States further westward. Many years later, in the 1830s, Andrew Jackson continued that tradition. During his presidency, 93 treaties were broken with Indian tribes and under the Indian Removal Act; Indians were forced across the Mississippi River, all in the name of expansion. James Polk continued on, adding Texas, California and much of the southwest in a two-year war with Mexico, called the training ground for the Civil War. That brings me to Abraham Lincoln, who just wanted to “preserve the union” but through dictatorial means. Newspapers were shut down, habeas corpus was suspended, the Supreme Court was defied and martial law was declared in several states all in the name of “military necessity” and preserving the union. The word union can be easily swapped with “nation,” so in essence he was the creator of the idea: America is a nation. While I would go through the rest of history with invalid presidents like Rutherford B. Hayes, talk about the planning of the American empire by four figures in politics (Captain Mahan, geopolitical thinker Brooks Adams, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Teddy Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge), imperialistic President William McKinley and so on, I will reserve that for a future discussion.

               What must be discussed is the idea that America is a nation. To do that, I’d like to look at what President Obama has said about it and go from there. In a recent speech about climate change, the President spoke about: “the Nation's future health and economic prosperity” and how “The Federal Government will work in partnership with states and local communities to help make our nation more resilient.” So, is he trying to say that all of those who live in this country are part of one nation? That doesn’t follow proper logic. Native Americans, who I mentioned earlier, are on reservations and have their own culture. That makes them not part of the greater “nation.” Also, foreign national and non-citizens including so-called “illegal immigrants,” foreigners, green card workers and others have different cultures. In addition, each ethnic and racial group has its own culture and beliefs. As one writer on AlterNet described it, there are 11-12 different cultures in the United States. This conjures up a number of different questions. Then, how is America a “nation?” Why is the intergovernmental organization, United Nations, not called the United Association of Countries?

               To find out, one must look at the UN Charter itself. The charter calls these entities “our respective governments” in the preamble. But, that’s not all. In Article 1, it states a purpose of the United Nations is to “develop friendly relations among nations.” However,Article 4 clarifies this, supposedly. According these sections “membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states…[and] the admission of any such state [with]… a decision by the General Assembly [and a]…recommendation of the Security Council.” In Article 14, the words “general welfare or friendly relations among the nations” is mentioned, in Article 32 non-U.N. members are called states and in Article 55 the “friendly relations among nations” is mentioned once again. In Article 110 of the charter it calls on “all signatory states” and “states signatory to the present Charter” to ratify it. As a result, I conclude that the U.N. is not completely clear on the issues, so it unsure if the organization was created to promote nationalism or just the maintaining of states.

               Also to determine the degree of nation worship, one has to investigate our President’s speeches on the matter using the White House search engine. In the wake of Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting in Arizona, Mr. Obama called for the nation to heal its wounds. How can that occur if an American nation is a figment of imagination? To put it simply, a “nation” encompassing all of the territory of the United States of America does NOT exist; it is only divided groups of people. One may ask why this matters. This matters because it eliminates the assumption that there is one common language, history and traditions. American Indians don’t drill in the plateau they live on, trucking water in. Intellectuals on the East Coast get water pumped to them daily. In the end, one must look beyond the “nation worship” rhetoric and see the evils of the American empire, not clouded in extreme patriotism.