The Shah: Is Supporting a Dictatorship Moral?

[TheEgoist]

Do you think it was proper for America not to only support the Shah of Iran in the 1950s and 60s, but to have actually installed him because of interests in the oil business? Why or why not? It can be said that the former Government was just as bad, if not worse, than the Shah of Iran in different cases, but does that justify propping him up and giving our moral and financial support to him because of some oil fields?

[DavidOdden]

Do you think it was proper for America not to only support the Shah of Iran in the 1950s and 60s, but to have actually installed him because of interests in the oil business?

That would depend on what the actual alternatives were, and that's beyond my historical grip. The crucial issue, as I understand it, was whether the Soviet Union would have absorbed Iran as a vassal state (as it tried with Afghanistan). Iran started to take a turn for the bad by stealing western property after the pro-Western PM was murdered by Islamists. That was essentially the end of any movement towards freedom and civilization in Iran, and the beginning of over a half century of "lesser of two evils" thinking. The fundamental question is what right the Iranian government had to confiscate BP's property -- none, of course.

[DarkWaters]

I just checked out a book from the library to learn more about this event in history. I will try to comment on it in the near future.

[TheEgoist]

Could you give me the name of the book, DarkWaters?

And David, I agree with all that you've said.

[DarkWaters]

Could you give me the name of the book, DarkWaters?

Confronting Iran by Ali Ansari. After reading the first 75 pages, I am not too impressed with the content and the style of writing. The book is okay though. The book is really a modern history of Iran, in the context of international relations with the United States.

There is also a book that focuses entirely on the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq called All of the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. I have not read this book. However, this appears as if it might contain a lot of interesting facts alongside a lot of bad reasoning. That being said, there might still be value in reading it, if the book does contain a lot of facts. Just be wary of questionable arguments intended to persuade the reader that bad U.S. foreign policy causes Islamic terror.

[adrock3215]

Absolutely not proper and completely not moral. Probably the single most ridiculous foreign policy blunder the United States has ever made. There is no argument that can support US involvement. Now, we can most definitely argue whether or not the UK had a right to intercede (even though Britian went to the International Court of Justice at The Hague to contest the nationalization and they were ruled against). The bottom line was that Britian lacked the means to replace the democratically-elected government with a more Western-friendly regime, which would have enabled British Petroleum to continue using Iranian oil fields. Because of this, Britian came to Sec. of State Dulles for help, playing on US fears about communism by trying to link Mossadeq to the Soviet Union. Truman disagreed, but Eisenhower conceeded after becoming president.

Anyway, the simple fact with regards to America is that the United States had no property on Iranian soil that was nationalized.

[DavidOdden]

Anyway, the simple fact with regards to America is that the United States had no property on Iranian soil that was nationalized.

American businesses had an interest in Anglo-Persian Oil, which justifies the act on a purely nationalistic basis. Even if there had been no such interest, there is no question that the US would have been morally justified in undertaking a direct military action, since Mossadeq had no right to govern the country.

[Qwertz]

I was thinking about this today, and I had a thought.

From a rule of law perspective, owning property in a foreign jurisdiction that might be hostile to your property rights is pretty risky. The foreign jurisdiction could change the law (because they don't respect property rights) and take away your property and you are left without legal recourse. You can't sue the government in its own courts (sovereign immunity), and the courts of your home jurisdiction (e.g. the U.S. Courts) have no jurisdiction over foreign nations or property therein. So from a legal perspective, the Iranian theft of BP oil interests was ... well ... legal, because Iran got to write the applicable law.

Obviously that doesn't make it right. (This is the part many of my law professors don't seem to get - just because it's the properly crafted, democratically enacted will of the people doesn't make it right.) What would an action to enforce those rights look like? Is the nationalization of a particular property, or particular industry, sufficient to illegitimize (for lack of a real word) a government? The U.S. kind of did that with the railroads, and tried to with the steel industry, and arguably does it all the time with eminent domain. I think it's different in degree, certainly, but is it different in kind? And is the degree of the violation relevant to a) the legitimacy of the legal system that committed the violation or the decision by an outside power to step in and enforce the violated rights? Or both?

I guess I'm asking: How big does the violated interest have to be before it becomes proper for one government to reach out to use force against the other? If Iran had just stolen my ramshackle desert hut instead of big expensive oil fields, would it have been proper for the US to spend billions to wage a war to recover it? Millions? Up to, but not exceeding, the value of my hut? Or would I be S.O.L., on the argument that that's the risk I accepted when I bought property in a country that doesn't respect property rights?

~Q

[DarkWaters]

I guess I'm asking: How big does the violated interest have to be before it becomes proper for one government to reach out to use force against the other? If Iran had just stolen my ramshackle desert hut instead of big expensive oil fields, would it have been proper for the US to spend billions to wage a war to recover it? Millions? Up to, but not exceeding, the value of my hut? Or would I be S.O.L., on the argument that that's the risk I accepted when I bought property in a country that doesn't respect property rights?

This indeed becomes a very difficult question to answer given that we live in a mixed economy where defense is funded through mandatory taxation. I recently made a post on this issue in a different thread. Perhaps, if there is enough to discuss, we could start a thread devoted to this topic.

[DavidOdden]

I guess I'm asking: How big does the violated interest have to be before it becomes proper for one government to reach out to use force against the other?

I suggest that it's not right to think of this as a cash-flow type question, and instead the question should be answered in terms of simple principle where dollars don't enter into it. The principle is that it simply is not possible for a foreign government to violate the rights of an American. Money really doesn't enter into it. We will act decisively to protect the rights of our citizens. The subtle distinction I'm drawing here is found in the word "will", not "may". The problem is that as a matter of policy, the US government has been happy with the word "may".

[adrock3215]

American businesses had an interest in Anglo-Persian Oil, which justifies the act on a purely nationalistic basis.

I was not aware of this. I tried searching for it for a bit, but I found no link between American business and Anglo-Persian Oil. Where are you seeing this?

Even if there had been no such interest, there is no question that the US would have been morally justified in undertaking a direct military action, since Mossadeq had no right to govern the country.

Why did he have no right to govern the country if he was democratically elected by his country's own parliament?

[TheEgoist]

Mossadeq was put into power through basic force. There was hardly anything democratic about it. Islamic Nationalists were holding a gun to every public figures head and demand they vote for this man. That is in no way a legitimate way to be " elected " into office.

[Inspector]

"Democracy" does not grant the right to govern, nor is it a justification for anything, much less the violation of rights.

[adrock3215]

From Wikipedia:

"On 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets.

Despite the economic hardships of his policy, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952, was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would ask the Shah to grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.

Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protesters of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded.

Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained..."

Yeah, the guy was an idiot and his policies were short-sighted. But why should a foreign country (such as ours) tell another country what their policies should be, by installing whatever regime they believe is best? Why not give the guy some time to ruin his country and wait until the philosophic undercurrent is supportive of capitalism?

I'm still looking for how American business was connected with Anglo-Persian Oil.

[DavidOdden]

I'm still looking for how American business was connected with Anglo-Persian Oil.

By owning shares of the company. I will try to provide documentation (after the break, unfortunately).

[DarkWaters]

So the primary (and correct) claim from the British is that Iran had no right to nationalize British oil interests. To what extent, if any, was this hypocritical? Was the United Kingdom nationalizing any private property in the early 1950s or even in the 1940s?

Of course, an action can still be moral, even if it is hypocritical.

Edited November 23, 2007 by DarkWaters

[adrock3215]

By owning shares of the company. I will try to provide documentation (after the break, unfortunately).

Were you able to locate this?

[DavidOdden]

Were you able to locate this?

Sorry, busy and it slipped my mind. I'll dredge stuff out of the library Monday.

[Rourke]

American businesses had an interest in Anglo-Persian Oil, which justifies the act on a purely nationalistic basis. Even if there had been no such interest, there is no question that the US would have been morally justified in undertaking a direct military action, since Mossadeq had no right to govern the country.

I don't see how military action would be justified in the case of enforcing the concessions of property on a foreign land. When you buy property in another country, its caveat emptor; that country is within its rights (as they see it) to sieze it based upon whatever law its people observe. So if the country is unstable, its likely a bad investment (which is why you don't see much foreign investment in many parts of Africa or the Middle East). Certainly the US government can intervene on your behalf, and can even go so far as to threaten sanctions. But military action? Now you're talking the almost certain loss of lives, many surely innocent, when you "act decisively" to protect these property rights. Very messy situation indeed.

An important point to make is that many people thought the concessions originally made to western Oil companies were illegitimate in the first place. And to the original question for this thread, does the United States have the right to subvert or undermine the rights of a foreign people to choose their own system of government (Congo, Vietnam, Panama) in order to protect its own geopolitical interests? In my opinion, no.

I haven't found any information backing up the claims that Mossadeq had no legitimacy.

[DavidOdden]

When you buy property in another country, its caveat emptor; that country is within its rights (as they see it) to sieze it based upon whatever law its people observe.

The point is that there is no such caveat. Maybe you don't understand what you just said: that the concept of "right" is entirely arbitrary, and reduces to "what the law says". Which would mean, "you have the right to property if and only if there is a law allowing property; you have the right to live if and only if you are given that right by the state".

Very messy situation indeed.

Yes, and the blame for the mess lies with the aggressor nation, Iran in this case. It remains a fact that the function of government is the protection of rights, not the avoidance of messes, and the bottom line for the protection of rights is the use of retaliatory force.

[softwareNerd]

... the rights of a foreign people to choose their own system of government

I haven't been following this thread in detail, so my response is merely to this single point.

The question is: do these foreign people (or any people) have such a right? In other words: do the people in a country have the right to form any type of government they like? The answer is that rights are not collective. Rights are for the protection of individuals. Governments are legitimate only to the extent that they protect individual rights. Therefore, if an overwhelming majority decide that they want to establish a Nazi state and deprive some tiny minority of its rights, they would not have the right to do so.

In other words, the right to action does not flow from being in the majority. It is quite okay to use a majority vote as a procedure to decide things that do not undermine individual rights; but, democracy is not a primary. Indeed, if it becomes mob-like deprivation of the minority -- even a minority of one -- it is evil to the extent it deprives people of rights. Note this: a government is not evil to the extent it does not represent the will of all people, only to the extent it deprives people of rights.

Most educated people in the West recognize that unlimited democracy is evil and that rights are important too. However, they still hold democracy as a primary. This is where Objectivism disagrees. According to Objectivism, individual rights are the primary in forming political systems.

In the 1900s various British colonies in Asia claimed the right to "self government". This was claimed as a primary, while it really was not. Take India, for instance. Of course the British deprived Indians of certain rights. However, from this, it does not follow that Indians may morally form a government of locally-born folk who would then become tyrants in the place of the foreign-born folk. In what way does it matter, to the person who's rights are being deprived, whether his oppressor is local or foreign? What really happened in most cases is that who was being deprived of rights and how was all that changed.

I haven't found any information backing up the claims that Mossadeq had no legitimacy.

You now have the context required to know how an Objectivist would judge his legitimacy; and, winning the popular vote is not the primary factor in that judgment. Edited December 2, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Rourke]

I haven't been following this thread in detail, so my response is merely to this single point.

The question is: do these foreign people (or any people) have such a right? In other words: do the people in a country have the right to form any type of government they like? The answer is that rights are not collective. Rights are for the protection of individuals. Governments are legitimate only to the extent that they protect individual rights. Therefore, if an overwhelming majority decide that they want to establish a Nazi state and deprive some tiny minority of its rights, they would not have the right to do so.

In other words, the right to action does not flow from being in the majority. It is quite okay to use a majority vote as a procedure to decide things that do not undermine individual rights; but, democracy is not a primary. Indeed, if it becomes mob-like deprivation of the minority -- even a minority of one -- it is evil to the extent it deprives people of rights. Note this: a government is not evil to the extent it does not represent the will of all people, only to the extent it deprives people of rights.

Most educated people in the West recognize that unlimited democracy is evil and that rights are important too. However, they still hold democracy as a primary. This is where Objectivism disagrees. According to Objectivism, individual rights are the primary in forming political systems.

In the 1900s various British colonies in Asia claimed the right to "self government". This was claimed as a primary, while it really was not. Take India, for instance. Of course the British deprived Indians of certain rights. However, from this, it does not follow that Indians may morally form a government of locally-born folk who would then become tyrants in the place of the foreign-born folk. In what way does it matter, to the person who's rights are being deprived, whether his oppressor is local or foreign? What really happened in most cases is that who was being deprived of rights and how was all that changed.

I am not sure what you are advocating here. Are you saying that a foreign government, the United States for instance, has a right to subvert the will of foreign peoples if the chosen government is not moral, moral being they protect the rights of its citizens? In that case, according to what I understand about Objectivist philosophy, there is no moral government on the planet.

You now have the context required to know how an Objectivist would judge his legitimacy; and, winning the popular vote is not the primary factor in that judgment.

According to your own definition, no immoral government can be legitimate. So national sovereignty be damned? Or is there some sliding scale in effect...

[Rourke]

The point is that there is no such caveat. Maybe you don't understand what you just said: that the concept of "right" is entirely arbitrary, and reduces to "what the law says". Which would mean, "you have the right to property if and only if there is a law allowing property; you have the right to live if and only if you are given that right by the state".Yes, and the blame for the mess lies with the aggressor nation, Iran in this case. It remains a fact that the function of government is the protection of rights, not the avoidance of messes, and the bottom line for the protection of rights is the use of retaliatory force.

Well I don't think anyone has established that the land concessions of Iran were themselves legitimate. The subdivision of Iran and clear heavy handed manipulation of the Iranian "government" by the British and Russians puts these concessions on shaky ground legally, and morally. So before fueling up the F-16 squadrons, we may need to establish that these oil companies have firm legal rights here.

This insistance on the protection of individual rights at all costs, regardless of the collective good, seems to be a dangerous notion (military invasion is being advocated here). Its like ensuring the self determination of all airplane passengers, meanwhile the plane is crashing into a mountain.

[softwareNerd]

I am not sure what you are advocating here. Are you saying that a foreign government, the United States for instance, has a right to subvert the will of foreign peoples if the chosen government is not moral, moral being they protect the rights of its citizens?

Here's a question back to you: do you think it is possible for a elected government (i.e. elected by the majority in that country) to persecute it's citizens? If so, by what standard would you call it persecution?

In that case, according to what I understand about Objectivist philosophy, there is no moral government on the planet.

I suppose you mean perfectly moral. Would you like to name some candidates for perfectly moral governments, using your own standards? Or, at least do you have any personal evaluation -- according to your own standards -- that would allow you to name some governments that are relatively immoral compared to others and to name some others that are relatively moral. As in the question above, it's not so much about which governments you'd name; I'm really trying to figure out if you think there is any objective way to evaluate governments on a scale of morality, or if anything goes as long as it is democratically elected. In other words, do you think moral government is whatever the majority want it to be -- minorities be damned?

So national sovereignty be damned?

What is national sovereignity? Does it include the unrestricted power of the majority to deprive the minority of their rights? If that is what you mean by national , then... yes, it should be damned. I damn the violation of individual rights. Do you hold that the majority should be allowed to violate individual rights? More fundamentally, do you hold that individual rights are only what the majority say they are, and that questions of ought are not applicable?

[DavidOdden]

Well I don't think anyone has established that the land concessions of Iran were themselves legitimate.

Do you have a basis in fact (not propaganda) for thinking that they were not? For instance, who actually owned the land on which the derricks were erected? Names, for example. The clear heavy-handed manipulation of individual rights by the Iranian "government" in claiming ownership of the land when it was not in fact there for the government to own more than negates any negotiating tactics used by the British.

This insistance on the protection of individual rights at all costs, regardless of the collective good, seems to be a dangerous notion (military invasion is being advocated here).

What is this "collective good" jibber-jabber? You will notice that I have not insisted on protection of individual rights at all costs, under any circumstance. In fact, the cost in Iran was very low.

You aren't reading this thread close enough. There are two completely separate questions. The first, relevant to this thread, is whether US support of the disposal of Mossadeq a half-century ago was proper and the answer is, more or less "yes". This involved and involves no military invasion. The other completely separate question is whether direct military against Iran would be presently justified, on the basis of Iran's threat to the US in the form of their promulgating terrorism. That is not what's being discussed here.

As a historical matter, please note that nothing about Mossadeq's existence as Premier of Iran reflects "the will of the people". He was not elected by the people, he was installed by the Majlis. Remember that Hitler was "democratically selected" as dictator of Germany.